No. I was not thrown off the list. I DO find myself concurring with Kent
Crispin's choice of words, namely "hounded off".
My summary:
I attempted to strongly urge the group a) to focus on its constructive
goals and to develop workable procedures, and b) to avoid indulging in ad
hominems and to refrain from ISOC, ICANN, etc. "bashing". Ignoring the
usual array of individual flammages these efforts acquired back to me, the
IDNO list moderator/owner eventually rewarded the effort by a formal
request to vote ostracism, for me and Kent.
The peremptory removal of a list member happened only once that I am aware
of and involved a different person. Although the person was added back to
the list quickly (I believe) there was a very clear failure to comprehend
the serious inappropriateness of the removal.
But then, we also found ourselves lectured about the inherent requirements
for "correct" behavior, absent any documentation of these
requirements. Given the disparity of cultural norms around the world, such
forceful assertion of absolutes, in a global forum, remains downright puzzling.
>your claims. Yes, it was discussed, and several of us voted down the idea
>and you
>are here to this day.
I don't recall seeing the results of that vote. I DO recall seeing some
people make statements in favor of the ostracisms and other make statements
against. I do NOT recall seeing much discussion about the rather basic
procedural anomaly of invoking such a serious step, absent any documented
and approved procedures supporting such an effort, particularly for a group
that is attempting to claim representation for a large very constituency
and in an open forum.
>establishing rules of operation. We were not given guidelines and
>"mandate" as
ICANN was given guidelines. The mandate has come, incrementally and
later. For IDNO, some of us tried to provide guidance about the norms and
pitfalls for activities such as this. In effect we were trying to help the
group develop a basis -- ie, to give it our view of useful guidelines --
for the mandate.
>ICANN was. Nor were we given public funds and then wasted them away without
>accomplishing anything but a congressional investigation that all US taxpayers
>will be paying for, whatever side we take on the issues.
A shame. No doubt this group would have been much more creative in its wastage.
> While we believe there may be a long list of things you wish to
> complain about
>or take issue with, are any of them of any substance? Could you please
>mention one
>of those so you can be taken seriously on at least that issue. While there are
Well, gosh. I thought the list of four procedural anomalies I cited
earlier were pretty serious.
It is hard to imagine a reasonable view of due process which permits these
actions.
>bits of truth in some of what you say, they are not supportable toward
>your end
>point of IDNO not being suitable to represent its constituency. I rather
>expect
If public and open representation is permissible by an organization that
works hard to stifle dissent and ignore due process, you might be right.
> Finally, since you are a guest and not a member, why does it bother
> you that
The use of the term 'guest', for an organization attempting to claim
representation of such a large constituency and in a public forum, suggests
a basic mismatch in our views of the obligations for this group.
>is your position on the wasting of ICANN money with no result? (Other than the
There is a difference between stating a sweeping conclusion, versus citing
details to support the conclusion. I am not aware of spending
irresponsibilities by the ICANN folks, and hence have no basis for sharing
your assessment.
>congressional investigation, that is!) What is your position on ICANN
>"openness"
>as regards individual domain name owners, not the IDNO as organizing here? (We
As I tried to point out to this group long ago, the mere ability to define
a category does not automatically legitimize it as a "consistency".
The test of constituency is the banding together of that constituency and
its pursuit of common goals. What is notable about the very, very large
(potential) constituency at issue here is the rather serious lack of such
effort.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/