Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 03:34 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Critical comments did not come from "Congress". They came from a few
> > > elected officials in Congress.
> >Those wold be Congressmen. If they do not make comments from Congress who
> You do not know the difference between stating that something was from a
> person who is part of a group, versus that it was (formally) from the
> entire group?
Wait a second here you just added the word formally and changed the meaning. Maybe
it would be more correct for you to say that you meant formally, then we could have
> No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult.
Yes when you just change words in the middle of a discussion.
> > > Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency...
> >Their knowledge is only superficial as to what you deem important. It is not
> >superficial when it comes to reading public support and the protecting the
> >publics' rights.
> How does an utterly silly claim that ICANN is responsible for controlling
> pornography on the net serve to protect the public's rights?
One silly statement does not void a Congressman's goals and objectives. My statment
is correct, you are taking a specific and creating a generalization.
"No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult."
> > > And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> > > meetings "with absolutely no vested interests". It might be interesting to
> > > discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> > > meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> > > interest.
> >Where does you vested interest lie?
> So, rather than provide the basis for your claim, you want to turn things
> elsewhere, such as raising personal questions about me?
I was pointing out that your criticism was solely theoretical in that we do not
know where peoples vested interests lie.
> > > However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you
> > > cite. What is their experience with public decision processes? What is
> > > their understanding of serious operations administration for critical
> > > infrastructure services? How much experience do they have balancing ideals
> > > with practical constraints?
> > >
> >I gather you are saying you do not want anyone who is not frimly
> >entrenched and
> >thinking along the same lines as you,
> Eric, if you are going to distort what I say, please at least use what I
> say as the basis.
> Better still, try to attend to the questions being posed. You made some
> assertions and their basis was asked.
This was not my original thread I made no assertions here I only questioned your
dialogue with another member. But I do not see you answering any of my questions
just attacking me for asking them.
> >You then state;
> >"The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal
> >attacks, and
> >focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it impossible to conduct
> >serious, public discussion about serious, practical improvements."
> >Would you mind stating which deatails are irrelevant?
> an example, sure: the popular, irrelevant detail was about the management
> policies for .org.
Let me try to explain why that was relevant. Because people were worried about
it. I know that may bother some, but it is a clear fact. If something going on is
worrying members they should discuss it. Concern for people's stress and
perceptions may not be neat and tidy but it is part of a policy - contributing
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html