[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Message(Damage Control) from the Illigitimate Chair - List Rules
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [ga] Message(Damage Control) from the Illigitimate Chair - List Rules
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 19:53:08 -0800
- CC: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, karl@CaveBear.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "J. Baptista" <email@example.com>, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Louis L. Touton" <Louis_L._Touton@jonesday.com>, Louis Touton <email@example.com>, Linda Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, William Daley <email@example.com>, "vinton g. cerf - ISOC" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <20000206224444.11BE2326F3@smtp1-out.minitel.net>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Karl wrote:
> >Since you chose to impose censorship, I chose to leave this group.
> While I am not particularly influenced by insults and menaces by the
> (few) people that indulge in this childish practice, I am particularly
> upset by your decision.
Many of those insults have come directly from you and the DNSO List
Admin. in particular. In fact, the very action that has now been taken
to "Split" the DNSO lists in order to conduct a social experiment
goes far beyond reason, as Karl and others have rightly expounded upon
to you and members of the DNSO General Assembly. This is precisely
one of several reasons that Karl has clearly stated why he no longer
wishes to participate in such a sham. Although I cannot agree with
Karl and others taking this action, I also cannot blame them for doing so
either. A conundrum indeed, created unnecessarily. This will plague
the DNSO and ICANN for some time to come unless it is corrected
> First of all, because it will deprive the GA of a voice that brings a
> different POV, that is very useful for the good health of the debate.
> But most important, because it comes on a difference of opinion about a
> subject that is very important for me: freedom of expression.
> The difference of opinion is about where to draw the line.
> As I said before, I read with much interest your postings, as well as
> those of many others, like Dan and Ellen. We seldom agree. I even recall
> that I have been very critical of some of the positions of the BWG, but
> never the idea of limiting the freedom of speech of the people like you
> has crossed my mind. Moreover, I would fight for your right to express
> your opinions (that I don't share), and I told you in private postings
> that I think that your presence in the ICANN BoD would be beneficial. In
> fact, I even supported your nomination as DNSO candidate (but I think
> that your role is more the one of an At-Large Director).
> Why am I telling you this? Because I believe, and here comes the
> disagreement, that at a certain point you have to draw the line between
> the expression of alternative positions on issues at hand, and
> expression of nothing, that are even sidetracking the debate, and
> therefore ultimately reducing the possibility for ideas and proposals
> that are alternative to the ones of the "ruling powers".
> My point is that while there is absolutely no doubt that "censorship" of
> ideas should never have citizenship here (or anywhere else, for this
> matter), the enforcement of rules of behaviour is a different ball game.
> Combine this with the fact that who uses abusive language or multiple
> identities writes much, but sais nothing, and you have the reason for
> the decision of providing a monitored list for those who cannot (or do
> not want) to bother in "filtering". For the others, a "full" list,
> including even postings from non-members, is available.
> The inconditionals of the "no monitoring" can easily subscribe to the
> full list, and do their own filtering. How can this possibly be called
> One last question.
> You claim that the GA has little power vs. the NC, and that the NC has
> little power vs. ICANN, and so on (see ref. below):
> >Not that I'm leaving a body that has any power - the General Assembly
> >powerless and ignorred by the Names Council of the DNSO. And the Names
> >Council is ignorred by the ICANN board. And the ICANN board is
> >bypassed by ICANN's executive officers.
> Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the GA
> is to quit the boat now?
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208