These are some serious charges for which I don;t see evidence. I assume
that you have some?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:owner-domain-policy@INTERNIC.NET]On
> Behalf Of Kevin J. Connolly
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 4:31 PM
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> Subject: Fwd: The idno mailing list
>
>
> Dear Readers:
>
> As I am sure many of you are aware, there have been calls for
> one or more constituencies that would embrace individuals as
> such. These initiatives have sought to confer upon
> interested individuals somewhat more say in domain name
> governance than would be available under the rubric of the
> General Assembly.
>
> One of the more vocal proponents of that initiative has been
> an organization calling itself, variously, the "Individual
> Domain Name Owners <something>", <http://www.idno.org> and
> "The Cyberspace Association." A brief review of the content
> of the website reveals some vague obeisance in the direction
> of "democracy." One would expect as much. After all, one of
> the buttons that we would expect the IDNO's to push is the
> "Democracy is good" button.
>
> Don't be suckered-in by them. They're about as democratic as
> the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). And I am their Leonid
> Trotsky :-)
>
> I was a co-founder of IDNO. However, I was foolish enough to
> criticize several aspects of its activities:
>
> (A) ICANN-bashing
> (B) ISOC-bashing
> (C) Threats made by a single individual to squelch the
> comments being made on the IDNO mailing list by Dave Crocker
> and Kent Crispin.
> (D) Votebots launched at the whim of a single
> individual to remove Dave and Kent from the mailing list.
> (E) NSI-sucking-up.
>
> The immediate result was that I was expelled from membership
> in IDNO. No warnings. No notice. No voting. Simply
> expelled by fiat of Joop Teemstra.
>
> Many were those who thought that I must have been dropped in
> error, and that Joop would put me back on the website just as
> soon as he awoke.
>
> Nope. Instead Joop sent me a note confirming that my
> deletion from the list was not in error, and that he had done
> so because I had turned into an enemy.
>
> I was still on the IDNO list, so I posted an essay about the
> nature of democracy; about how democracy is based on respect
> for the rules, and a belief that freedom of expression is a
> good idea, because out of the free exchange of ideas comes
> workable political decisions made by the people. I thereupon
> shut up and proceeded to watch the ensuing debate about
> democratic processes. I was heartened to see some real
> progress being made about the nature of the constituency and
> the "glue" that would hold it together.
>
> Then . . .again without notice or warning or even the
> courtesy of an invitation to leave (such as had been extended
> to Kent and Dave) . . .I received the attachment.
>
> Yessiree, unsubscribed from the IDNO mailing list by Joop
> Teemstra himself. It seems that silencing me is an even
> higher priority with IDNO than silencing Kent and Dave
> combined. Oh, and I was also unsubscribed from
> IDNO-announce. Wowie, I guess even the announce list
> contains pearls which must be protected from swine like me.
>
> My removal was done in a manner that leaves no doubt as to
> what drives the IDNO group. It's not a legitimate
> constituency. It's simply a group of people to whom Joop has
> granted hecksher (or nihil obstat, if that's your shtick :-).
> Since I'm insufficiently orthodox to please Joop, I have
> been excluded from IDNO. Not by the will of IDNO's members,
> but simply because I offended Joop.
>
> I don't think that there's any reason to take IDNO/CA
> seriously again. They're kooks.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kevin J. Connolly
> <Please disregard the silly trailer which follows; it's my
> sysadmin's idea, and I can't disable it while using this account.>
>
> **********************************************************************
> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
> munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
> cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
> at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> **************************************************************
> ********