That's democracy.
I believe that we
>should resist the natural impulse to define criticism out of existence by
>declaring it "disruptive". We can easily recognize when messages we
>disagree with violate behavioral norms (and sometimes imagine that they do
>even when they don't), but we tend to be blind to our own transgressions.
>It is precisely this dichotomy that fueled the Dave Crocker ISOC thread that
>you cite as evidence for his removal. Crocker contended that other list
>members' negative comments about ISOC and/or ICANN were disruptive and
>off-topic and should be banned. Others then complained that his comments
>were themselves out of bounds. It seems pretty clear to me that both sides'
>perceptions of what is and is not legitimate debate were influenced by their
>respective political views, and that acceptance of either Dave's position or
>yours would constitute politically motivated censorship.
>
John, I think you do not see what they are doing. Sowing discord is very
different from criticism . We have only a limited time to organize, before
Santiago.
All this writing has already seriously taken energy away from our goal.
Our list should not be yet another political discussion list where the DNS
wars can rage on. There are two other lists to do that on.
Crispin's list of "bashings" was carefully extracted from discussion
initiated by himself, or Mr Crocker.
>Kent's case is even clearer. I see absolutely no basis for declaring that
>it is beyond the pale to ask (I have seen no "demand") whether this list has
>an archive. There is also no evidence whatsoever that either Crsipin or
>Crocker is paid to post to this list. I know of only one paid list
>disrupter, but I don't think that he has posted to this list.
>
I see 3 reasons for the removal of Mr Crispin
1. behaviour unbecoming for a guest (he is not an IDNO member; that he
qualifies to be one but chooses not to, does not make him less of a guest
here) including ad hominems against listmembers.
2. reposting of a private message to the list
3. crossposting of a listmessage to another list (the discuss@dnso.org)
without the author's permission.
The fact that I gave him the chance to unsub himself voluntarily is already
a concession.
>This effort's youth and vulnerability are reasons to resist censorship, not
>to institute it. If we can not adequately defend our ideals and goals from
>our critics within our own forum by any means short of silencing them, how
>can we expect to do so elsewhere where we are in the minority?
>
Censorship is a term that you should not lightly use, John. I know a lot
about it from real life. It is about the power to cut speach or writing off
at the source. When 40 -odd people want a little private corner for
themselves to get some work done and *ask* their opponents to give them
some peace, that is not censorship. Pulling someone's internet access or
domain, *that* is censorship.
Keeping hostile gatecrashers out of a party is not.
It has been clearly announced that this is a moderated list. We have no
time for bloodsports here.
If you care about democracy and censorship issues and you care about the
survival of this list and of the IDNO, please offer your services to the
moderating committee. Your input is truly welcome there.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/