This is not about ego's and decisions, but about idea's and future structures.
Representing Domain Name registrants I would have liked to participate in
the DNSO meetings, but the short notice and the distance halfway across the
globe prevented me. All I can hope for is meaningful discussion on the
discuss@dnso list.
I noticed that you copied to the participants' list where you may have
supporters for your stance, but where I do have not even have read access.
>If you have an opinion to make, then make it and be done. No one
>authorized you to look for a lawyer for the DNSO in order to find a
>jurisdiction for incorporation. By acting in this irresponsible way, you
>are proving right those people like Robert Shaw who said the DNSO lists
>should not be opened to you and the others who haven't made a real
>contribution yet pretend to make decisions for others, and you are
>proving right Mike Roberts and the ICANN, who don't trust the Internet
>community to act responsibly.
>
Irresponsible? I actually had a suggestion to make, but I held back for
the the reasoned input of others.
It seems incorporation/non incorporation is a sensitive point.
If you would like to silence the discuss list on this point, please say so.
If you act as a spokesman for the "participants", let that be known too.
I, in my naivety, thought that Kent put the draft document up for discussion.
>There are between fifty and a hundred people, from all over the world,
>who invested their time, energy, and money to actively participate in
>the DNSO. How dare you usurp their prerogatives? And you have the deceit
>to do it on the IFWP list, to which most of them don't belong, in order
>to escape their censure.
>
Prerogatives, is it? You are belittling the time, energy and commitment of
others, who have contributed constructively to the discussion for hundreds
of hours and who find themselves not only excluded from the DNSO
participants list but now also subjected to your incivility.
To call my inadvertent omission to crosspost to the discuss@dnso list
"deceit" is way overboard. By all means, let us hear the participants'
"censure".
Ever since you went to Monterrey, you have become a propagandist for "the"
DNSO.
The participants showed you respect even if the minutes show precious
little input from you. You became a "participant". Have you become more now?
Instead of working towards the common goal of open discussions and broad
participation , has it now become your task to try to silence others who
are closest to your own professed point of view by calling them usurpers of
your newfound prerogatives?
'Nuf said.
Merry Christmas, Michael.
Back to the substance of this thread.
Where were we.
Brett and others argued for incorporation. Kent made the valid point of
that controversy could arise over some jurisdictions. I called for well
argued suggestions for jurisdictions other than Switzerland or the US.
Or perhaps a better argument as to why non-incorporation would be preferable.
Let us remain constructive and cooperative.
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/