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
-- 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/