[IFWP] nobody has been expelled from the IDNO

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:30:42 +1200

All,
Cool off!
There is no need to call anybody a liar.
It is just that there is a "difference in interpretation".
As is clear from the list exchanges, I removed Kevin Connolly's name from
the website, after an extremely anti-IDNO posting he made on the dnso.org
list, pending clarification of his position.
I asked him on the list to clarify if he still wanted to be a member and
offered to return his name "forthwith" if that was the case.
Instead Mr Connolly made his "adios" posting.
I asked him privately and he still did not clarify his position except that
he wanted me to stop Mr Walsh from calling his interpretation into
question. I had not seen the "liar, liar" exchange before now.
At the same time he wants to maintain that he was summarily expelled. Not
so. Even though the IDNO does not yet have formally approved membership
rules, I would not do that.

Instead, I posted this, after John Reynold's resignation in sympathy:

>John and all,
>
>First of all, I am very sorry to see you go, especially because you are
basing your departure on wrong conclusions.
>I am not IDNO's chair, I'm just the guy who has called IDNO into life and
is trying to nurse it to a proper democratic existence.
>It is not yet democratic, because it has no officers yet of any sort to
share the responsibility of keeping it alive. When I am faced with treason,
I have to act on my own. When I don't pay the bill for the website hosting,
the website dies. I am still the owner, in other words, not (unfortunately)
IDNO.
>I am justs as impatient to change this situation for the better as you are.
>I am herewith calling for nominations for
>1.election committee officers
>2.membership committee officers
>3. a steering committee
>
>I have proposed a charter that has attracted a hundred or so very
different people, but all people who want to see Individual DN owners
represented in ICANN.
>You can not compare us with ICANN itself. We are supposed to be a
constituency of special interests. Our members represent those interests
collectively.
>I have always maintained that creating a DNSO with special -interest
coinstituencies was a recipe for division and strife.
>We witness it now in IDNO.
>The constituency structure forces each constituency to be exclusive of the
voices of representatives of "competing" constituencies, who may try to
take over and thus increase the strength of their voice on the names council.
>In other words, it is a war game, not a peace game.
>I had hopes for an all inclusive DN owners' constituency, where we would
be somehow isolated from the DN wars.
>Maybe that was naive.
>Anyway, it is not yet IDNO who is making the mistakes, it is me.
>Please replace me as soon as possible with properly elected officers.
>Please replace my proposed charter as soon as possible with a properly
approved charter.
>I will still help to facilitate this transition.
>

If people think that I have shot IDNO in the foot, please consider that I
may have been carefully set up to direct my guns in that direction.
No reason to start calling a bunch of innocent DN owners who have joined
the IDNO in the hope of getting a voice, "goons".
Most of these people are joining because they are personal victims of NSI's
dispute policy.
More are coming every day. They bring their stories.
They do not understand a thing about this polarization between an
ISOC/ICANN camp and an NSI camp.
They do not want to be forced into any camp.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org