There's precious little meaningful discussion on any of these lists. And going
along
with the trumped-up new bylaws of ICANN, where the DNS interests are suposed to
incorporate so as to protect the ICANN Board financially, while we give them all
the
decision-making power for which we are liable, isn't adding to meaningful
discussion.
> 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.
Supporters? No one supports my stance. No one. There is no participants list.
None
of the DNSO or any other lists are dealing with the crucial issues.
> >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.
Silence the list? By arguing against incorporating before we know what we're
getting into? How do you figure that?
> If you act as a spokesman for the "participants", let that be known too.
I'm not a spokesman for anyone except myself, as William Walsh has pointed out
repeatedly, thanks a lot.
> I, in my naivety, thought that Kent put the draft document up for discussion.
Discussing incorporation doesn't mean going out and looking for a lawyer in
order
to incorporate.
> >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".
people who have haggled over a document for hundreds of hours have the right
to discuss it, yes, and even make decisions about it, before people who haven't
done so make decisions for them. Maybe in your case there was a reason of force
majeur why you haven't been able to participate until now, but for most of the
people "discussing" incorporation on this list, it's just hot air, although
no less dangerous for that. The DNSO is being railroaded into accepting finacial
responsibility for decisions made by a corporation - the ICANN - it has no
control over. And people want to look for a lawyer to go right ahead and
incorporate, before we've investigated whether we can accept the ICANN's new
bylaws? Do you accept that?
> Ever since you went to Monterrey, you have become a propagandist for "the"
> DNSO.
I am a propagandist for no one. When people treat me with respect, and give me
the opportunity to do useful work, I show my appreciation.
> The participants showed you respect even if the minutes show precious
> little input from you. You became a "participant". Have you become more now?
My input was substantial, in the areas where I had an interest and could be
effective.
Furthermore, unlike many here, I don't barge into toher peoples' prepared
terrain and
shoot my mouth off. I might also remind you that not all organizing is done on
the
record. As far as your question "Are you more now", I frankly don't know what
you're
referring to.
> 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?
Open discussion doesn't mean pushing the incorporation of an entity you aren't
directly involved in, Joop. As to silencing others, I have been silenced more
than any other participant on this list. I don't see you defending my right to
give opinions here, when every time I post someone tries to shut me up.
And the prerogatives I was referring to are those of the people who drafted
the DNSO application, that is, the hundred some odd men and women from all
over the world who gave their time and money to draft it. Not my prerogatives.
I have none. Only the two cents I'm able to squeeze in between the flames.
> Back to the substance of this thread.
> Where were we.
> Brett and others argued for incorporation.
So you admit now that Bret and you and the others weren't just helping with
"information", but arguing for incorporation. Thank you for finally telling
the truth.
> 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.
Sure, constructive and cooperative, like where to incorporate. Not whether
incorporation is acceptable to the DNS interests under the present circumstance,
in which we are going to be sued for decisions made by the ICANN, over
which we no longer have control and whose membership isn't us. No. Where to
perform the crime. That's what needs to be decided, huh, Joop?