[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Message(Damage Control) from the Illigitimate Chair - List Rules
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] Message(Damage Control) from the Illigitimate Chair - List Rules
- From: James Touton <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:07:51 -0800
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "J. Baptista" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Esther Dyson <email@example.com>, "Louis L. Touton" <Louis_L._Touton@jonesday.com>, Louis Touton <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linda Wilson <email@example.com>, Mike Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Becky Burr <email@example.com>, William Daley <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "vinton g. cerf - ISOC" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
- Organization: INEGroup Legal advisory and policy council
- References: <20000206224444.11BE2326F3@smtp1-out.minitel.net> <389E41A4.email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeff and all Assembly Members,
Well stated and I and the INEGRoup members are in complete
agreement with you here, as you know. It is amazing that such
foolishness could be perpetrated upon the Assembly Members
in such a manner and expected to be excepted. The damage
to ICANN and the Stakeholders with respect to trust will
be felt on a global basis. The results of course over the long
term are no known. I doubt that they will be forgotten very
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Roberto and all,
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Karl wrote:
> > >
> > >Since you chose to impose censorship, I chose to leave this group.
> > >
> > Karl,
> > 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
> very quickly.
> > 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
> > "censorship"?
> > 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
> > is
> > >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
> > routinely
> > >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?
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> 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.
> E-Mail email@example.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at