Once again, Kent shows his true colors.
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:18:31 -0400, "Karl E. Peters"
<bridge@darientel.net> wrote:
>Kent,
> I, believe it or not, can appreciate some of your points in this last
>response regarding my "one more time" note. It is true that you have been the
>brunt of some language that is inexcusable and embarrassing to the list as a
>whole. As members, those people should be dealt with internally and privately
>first. (Just as my first challenge to you was in private.) Failure to show
>greater restraint should bring some form of censure to them as well, barring
>improvement perhaps removal from the list. I expect that the process by which
>this particular situation is being remedied is well under way and no further
>outbursts SHOULD be made in the earlier manner. As irritating as your remarks
>may have been, you have carefully refrained from vulgar language and this, if
>this alone, is to be commended.
> The main reason for staying up this late to respond tonight, however, was
>to publicly acknowledge your statements quoted below:
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> Indeed, I have concluded that, while *an* IDNO may not be a bad idea, *this*
>> IDNO is a lost cause, and a successful IDNO cannot be built from it.
>>
>> As to what you could learn concerning the operation of the list, if you
>> don't see the problems, I'm afraid there isn't much I could say.
>
>These comments, unless dramatically misunderstood, indicate your clear belief
>that there is no reason to continue your participation with "this" IDNO. How
>long has this been the case? How long do you feel your continued presence is
>warranted if it provides no benefit to you or your goals or even to the goals
>of the individual domain name owners?
>
>As for your June 16th comments regarding membership, yes, I acknowledge this
>commentary and was briefly hopeful for some constructive input from you as a
>previously combatant guest to a group in it's earliest infancy. Nothing more
>has followed, however, after that time, but many other issues have been taken
>up. That is fine, but nothing positive and nothing of your vision for this
>type of constituency.
>
>> On the 16th, I posted a 114 line message, stating, partway down:
>>
>> "I was asked to put forth my own vision of how an IDNO should be. I will
>> do that over a few messages -- in this one I would like to respond in more
>> detail to the issue of membership criteria."
>>
>> I went on at some length on this topic. The only response was a series
>> of attacks from William Walsh.
>>
>> Isn't it obvious that no matter what I said it would be heckled down?
>
>At this point, based on consistent disapproval and malcontent with whatever
>has been said here, I regret to say you are probably right. Unless of course,
>you were to do as I challenged and promised to support, and make a clear
>statement regarding what can POSITIVELY be done in support of the individual
>domain name owner in ICANN or similar bodies to come in the future if
>re-organized by upcoming congressional investigations.
>
>> And finally, you, like all of the others on the list, seem strangely silent
>> when Roeland says stuff like: .......
>
>I am now on the record on this unfortunate display by a member to a guest.
>
>> ...The IDNO has collected the true extremist dregs of the whole process.
>
>Funny you should notice this...
>
>> You may recall that my first controversial statement on the list was that
>> there was a great deal of ICANN-bashing going on. You may have noticed that
>> IDNO is now going to endorse Patrick Greenwell's letter to Ralph Nader. I
>> won't comment on the bias in the letter -- we could spend a long time
>> arguing that -- but there is no realistic
>> doubt that if Patrick had his way ICANN would be completely reconstituted.
>
>Perhaps that will happen very soon anyway by act of congress. There is nothing
>sacred or permanent about ICANN anymore than NSI's corner on their market. Why
>can't someone hope for a change they feel is warranted? Bias is a normal part
>of an action group springing up to protest a group's treatment by another.
>They may be right or wrong, but bias is to be expected. it is how they came
>together.
>
>> One has to wonder what that would do to the IDNO effort; and one has to
>> wonder why the current IDNO leadership thinks that such a confrontational
>> stance vis a vis ICANN can possibly be helpful to their cause. Don't you
>> find that curious? Doesn't it seem almost terminally stupid, if the goal is
>> to convince ICANN to recognize you? Doesn't this confrontational approach
>> seem unwise?
>
>Personally, I am not concerned with whether ICANN recognizes us or not, rather
>I am concerned with the rights of the individual domain name owners. ICANN may
>not exist in current form long enough to be concerned about. We have to make a
>clear goal for ultimate protection of our constituency, whoever will be there
>to answer to.
>
>> I certainly won't support an IDNO controlled by them, though I would be
>> quite likely to support a reasonable IDNO.
>
>I would still welcome a chance to learn about your positive goals. Remember,
>it is the goal I am concerned about, not any group. What are the goals and
>components of a "reasonable IDNO"?
>
>> I suggest you go back and review all the actual messages I sent. I think
>> you will find that 1) I have made very substantive comments; and 2) your
>> statements about me criticizing every post that comes along are rather
>> overblown. Then review the heckling and name-calling I have endured; and
>> then think again about how objective
>> and inclusive you are being.
>
>Substantive, yes. Positive and constructive is more what I would hope for from
>a guest of such extensive background in this area. Please review my record
>about objectivity and inclusiveness, too. I have already dealt with the issue
>of name calling, but only you know why you endure it when you do not believe
>there is any prospect for the usefulness of this organization at all. You are
>obviously intelligent and know infinitely more about these issues than I do, I
>wish it could be used to effect positive change and STILL hope for that day,
>in whatever group you may be welcomed or perhaps start on your own. As I have
>stated so many times, it is the protection of the individual domain name owner
>that interests me, not all the stuff we have all endured on this list to get
>this far. Show me how you will accomplish this and I can be a valuable
>component.
>
>I hope this will be my last post on this area but felt I had to speak up for
>where you are right and clarify where I felt there were problems so we could
>at least agree or disagree on the clearly defined points.
>
>Very sincerely yours,
>Karl E. Peters
>karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com
>http://www.bridgecompanies.com
-- 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.