[wg-review] 11. IDNH Personal Position Paper

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

A personal position paper for inclusion in the documentation of this
WG-Review Report.

I do not earn my living from the internet, neither am I affiliated to
anybody deriving income from the internet, either individually or as a
corporation, nor have I met any member of this WG previously to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.

Therefore, I have been in a somewhat unique position to witness proceedings
from an unfettered viewpoint and given the opportunity, have advocated
representation of individuals such as myself within DNSO as appropriate
under the topic list.  While the views I have expressed have been my own,
naturally, amongst 15,000,000 domain name registrants, I could reasonably
expect to find like-minded individuals who would agree with me. At the same
time, I have given careful consideration to opposing views, kept on topic
and not engaged in "flames".

To further the cause of IDNH, I have made numerous constructive enquiries
and proposals to clarify issues, including criteria for membership of an
IDNH "constituency" within DNSO, drafted on the request of Joop Teenstra,
which I was happy to do, only too keen to assist colleagues as part of a
team. However, as the writer, there was certainly no intention on my part to
imply  "constituency" as being a formal constituency within the existing
DNSO structure and this proposal, which has now apparently been sidelined to
such a fate by what would appear to be unilateral decision making process,
was always intended to work equally well in an alternative structure, should
it be decided to abolish DNSO constituencies in due course.

It was precisely for this reason I initiated a strawpoll of members, asking
the following question:  "Do you support representation for individuals in
DNSO along the lines of a new "constituency " ? . 15 members voted yes by
email to the list.

Other examples to cause concern:-

Mr. Jefsey Morfin wrote:-
Joop,
"As you may recall I corrected Joana who misconstrued what you said,
explaining how your position was corrrect but did not apply to what she
was saying and in doing so she was embarassing us."

For the record, Mr Jefsey Morfin is misrepresenting me by this statement to
another member and has not even had the common courtesy to confront me
directly. Ideologically, I may not be able to agree with all of his views,
but I respect his right to hold them and am at a loss to explain why he
would wish to direct a personal attack towards me, except as punishment for
my refusal to kowtow to his persuasions.

Mr Morfin has also written this:-
"The mechanism initially suggested by Karl Auerbach,
applied by me and others, already in bootstrap operation and
documented by Kent Crispin gives us what is ours by right."

Could this be construed as evidence of a preconceived plan to ensure the
outcome of this WG review?

Also he wrote this:-

"That point is that I do not accept to have to plead to get my
due, all the more near people unwilling and unable to grant it,
while I already took it."

I would say this may be viewed as an unwillingness to work with colleagues
in a consensus building process

And finally this:-

"I certainly understand that ignorance and enthusiasm in a new cause one
believes to defend may lead to some mistakes. But it is not acceptable to
use in a motion a text whose the author has recognized as an error. What
may be acceptable as an humorous flame  becomes in this context such a
incredible summ of absurdities that it unconsiders the whole WG-Review.

As an active Member of the @large international community and having
presented the two initial motions that this text is supposed to oppose, I
feel personnally concerned by the text proposed by Mrs. Joana Lane. I
suppose that all the Members @large on his WG-Reveiw also feel hurt. All
this is a perfect illustration of the post of Mr. Kent Crispin."

I can only assume this is intended to connect me directly to the
"hi-jackers" to which Mr Crispin referred earlier, but M Jefsey would not be
able to produce a single email in the WG-Review which makes a complaint
against me that does not have his signature, neither a single post of mine
that could be regarded by a reasonable person as a "flame".

It is a matter of regret that I feel obligated to consider whether these are
the qualities one seeks in a leader.

As my grandfather used to say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and
what concerns me now is what is the source of the shadow cast upon Mr Jefsey
that has caused him to make such comments?

Thank you for your time.
Joanna Lane
http://www.internetstakeholders.com



--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html