Put up or shut up. Your disruptive behavior is unacceptable.
BTW, I tried to join. I was told Registrar members only were
permitted.
So if you would like to join the IDNO and support its goals of
recognition, you are more than welcome. Otherwise, you have no leg to
stand on with your argument below.
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:26:24 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 11:34:25PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> At 22:07 13/06/1999 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >There is no information concerning what is meant by "civil
>> >discourse", nor is there any indication of where I might find out
>> >anything about it.
>> >
>> Among civilised people there is not much need to spell out what civil
>> discourse is. It gets noted when it is absent.
>
>I beg to differ. Standards of behavior vary widely across the
>civilized world. A person as travelled as you should surely realize
>that. The traps for misunderstanding intention in email messages are
>well-known and frequently commented on. Furthermore, neither Dave nor
>I have engaged in *any* uncivil behavior.
>
>> We owe you a debt of gratitude for forcing us early on to formalize list
>> rules.
>
>You are certainly welcome. However, there are some serious flaws in
>those rules.
>
>First, in rule 2:
>
> The moderation is intended to be light and tolerant, and it does
> not mean pre-vetting of messages by the moderator(s). In cases of
> abuse, it can mean a call for partial or total ostracism, delivered
> by democratic majority vote by the IDNO members on this list.
>
>This rule is a perfect setup for the "tyranny of the majority". It
>means that 51% of the list members can throw out the other 49%, and
>it further means that there is no individual right of free expression
>or minority dissent. This rule is great for a fraternity house, but
>not acceptable for a democratic organization. Democracy is far more
>than just votes -- it also requires guaranteed rights for individuals
>that cannot simply be overturned by a majority vote. A simple
>majority vote, structure this way, is an invitation for abuse. I
>note, interestingly enough, that you are calling for a vote to
>ratify these rules, a vote by that same 51%.
>
>Second, in rule 3:
>
> This means: absolutely no reposting of private messages. It also
> means: no reposting of list messages elsewhere without permission
> of the author.
>
>Rules about private messages are completely irrelevant for a mailing
>list.
>
>Third, also in rule 3:
>
>This is supposed to be a *public list*, where matters of importance
>to *public policy* are discussed. Far from restricting posting, the
>list archive should publically available on the web. In my
>particular case, you made accusations about my behavior on the list,
>accusations which are simply not born out by the facts. I must be
>allowed to defend myself, in public. False accusations should not
>hide behind a rule such as this. The following rule would be much
>more appropriate:
>
> "The deliberations of the IDNO are matters of public record, and
> everything you say on this list will be visible to the public at
> all times. Please compose your messages in a manner so that you
> can be proud of them."
>
>> They are now posted on the website. They will be repeated at regular
>> intervals on the list.
>
>Oh -- I thought they were going to be voted on. Which brings me to
>another question: I have seen reference to several votes, but the
>results are not posted anywhere that I can find, nor are they
>announced on the mailing list. As far as the outside world is
>concerned, the votes might as well be a pure fiction. When are the
>results going to be publically available? When will there be an
>external audit of the voting procedures?
>
>> >> ISOC members may want to tell us how the ISOC list would deal with such
>> >> behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> For those who need to be reminded,
>> >
>> >Since I have never seen any of this before, I can hardly be reminded.
>> >
>> I did post a request/reminder not to cross-post on june 4. You may have
>> missed that. But you did not miss the request for a statement of position
>> for non-members.
>
>There was such a request on the web-site, and indeed, I did post a
>rather lengthy statement about my background, including the fact that
>I support ICANN and the gTLD-MoU.
>
>> Since you are now aware of the rules, why do you still violate them and
>> continue to crosspost without asking?
>
>I notice that your message was cross-posted to two other lists --
>perhaps you could explain why you violated the rules, as well?
>
>For myself, if it comes to defending myself against unjust
>accusations, yes, indeed, I will cross-post. Otherwise, no. Note
>that, as Dave pointed out, if you are being accused by the list
>owner, you have no choice but to appeal to a wider public. I
>consider it very unfortunate that I was placed in that position,
>but, as I said, I am not one to quietly drink the hemlock.
>
>> Do you think the dnso list appreciates it?
>
>Perhaps not, but the behavior of the prospective idno constituency is
>a topic of great relevance to the DNSO list. I also sent some of
>this material to the comments@icann.org address -- ICANN needs to see
>if the propsective idno constituency really is open to all comers.
>(I am also sending a copy of this message to ICANN.)
>
>So far, I'm afraid, the record is dismal. I can understand why there
>is fear of having the list messages in a public archive.
>
>One more thing on the "statement of position" clause in the rules.
>
>The fact is, whether I support the IDNO or not is completely
>irrelevant -- if the IDNO is to be an actual DNSO constituency, it
>should accept all individuals who have a domain name, EVEN IF THEY
>THINK THE IDNO SHOULD NOT EXIST. [You will note that the DNRC *is* a
>member of the IP constituency.]
>
>Indeed, I'm not at all sure that an IDNO should exist, though I
>haven't made up my mind on the issue. But if there is one, then it
>will affect me, and consequently I have a legitimate interest in its
>structure, whether I support it or not. Hence I have a legitimate
>interest in this process, whether I support it or not. Hence the
>claims that one must be a supporter of IDNO if one wishes to be
>involved are completely bogus.
>
>Finally, I would like to comment on the many votes you take. You
>have collected a group of people who share a common political view
>(you explicitly commented on how you feared losing your "unity").
>Then you set up rules that allow that self-selected group to decide
>who else can participate, through a series of majority votes. This
>is a perfect setup for gaming the election process, and, indeed, is
>a form of capture.
>
>Further, you foster an environment of great hostility to those who
>disagree with you.
>
>>From any reasonable point of view this is a terribly flawed process.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
-- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying to every time you have something to whimper about.