Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] my posting to the ICANN forum

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 08:40:58PM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> On 08:03 7/03/01 -0800, Kent Crispin said:
> 
> >Joop, I'm flattered that you think I am so important,
> but my expression
> >of opinion about what the board thinks does not constitute "revealing"
> >what they think.  On rare occasions I have had small polite
> >conversations with Board members, like many people, but most of my
> >opinions are in fact based on external observation, general knowledge of
> >the world, intelligence, and intuition. 
> >
> 
> Intelligence as in "information from non-public sources"?

No.  I meant intelligence as in "ability to think".

> That is more than
> the expression of an opinion.

Nope.  In fact, it's just an expression of opinion.

> Kent, you speak so often with the voice of the Board or the Staff that for
> lack of public denials from them, you are acting as an unofficial spokesman.

Sorry, this is absolute nonsense.  As a general rule, the Board and
Staff don't issue public denials of things people say on mailing lists
-- they wouldn't have time for anything else, if they did, given the
amount of misinformation that is out there.  But don't take my word for
it -- ask *any* board or staff member if I am a spokesperson for ICANN
in any capacity.  I'm quite certain what the answer will be, and
moreover, I'm quite certain that YOU know what the answer would be. 
Your statement about me being an unofficial spokesperson for the board
is simply rhetorical garbage, with no basis in reality, common sense, or
even ethics. 

> >> There is no question that being rebuffed without given reasons increases
> >> the levels of frustration, bitterness and cynicism of those who try to
> >> participate in good faith.
> >> The stonewalling is the cause of anti-ICANN feelings in the constituency
> >> and it has to be recognized as such.
> >
> >Nonsense.  The heavy anti-ICANN sentiment was present in the
> >constituency from the very beginning.
> 
> Read our petition again. www.idno.org/petition.htm This was a consensus
> document of all the signatories.

There was a great deal more said than just what was in your petition.

> What is anti-ICANN about pointing to its Bylaws and requesting to be
> recognized as part of its DNSO?

Nothing.  If that was all that was said I would have no point.  But that 
isn't all that has been said, not by a long shot.  Shall I dig up a bunch of 
quotes from you and others?

[...]
> >Does the term "messiah complex" mean anything to you?
> >
> Yes. It can be used as a label that allows you and the people you speak for
> to avoid the real issues that this WG is grappling with and instead 
> take a cheap pot-shot at the messengers.
> On how many of the participants in this WG, who have unselfishly         
> contributed so much of their time, do you want to stick cheap labels?

None.  I am referring strictly to you, and your frequent and tiresome
references to how much you have suffered through all this. 

> You are right that it won't suddenly change any direction on ICANN's part. 
> An 8th constituency with 3 seats will still be outvoted on the Names
> Council if nothing else is changed.  But you are wrong about taking
> the future attitude of the constituency as a given.  Once the
> constituency is recognized, the disgruntled individuals who may not
> become gruntled <g> overnight, will be heavily diluted by an influx of
> new constituency members,

Sorry, I see no evidence whatsoever to support that theory.  The GA 
list was effectively destroyed by the actions of a single person.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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