[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO documents
- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:01:49 -0800 (PST)
- From: "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO documents
On 20-Dec-98 Michael Sondow wrote:
> Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>> The public pronouncements from those involved with the ORSC generate
>> confidence that they will adhere to principles of openness and
>> accountability in a way that the internet typically will make possible.
> If the ORSC works openly, then I would be happy to participate. But
> public pronouncements mean nothing. Everyone makes the same
> pronouncements of openness, including DNSO.ORG and ICANN. I'll believe
> it when I see it. That goes for DNSO.NET, DNSO.COM, or anyone else.
ORSC has a MUCH better track record for that than the CORE/PAB does. But I
agree, actions speak louder than words. No one who has requested to be added
to the ORSC list has been refused.
>> Frankly I feel that it is you, Michael who has fallen in the trap that > I
>> warned you for early on-- you have become a legitimising factor for > "the"
>> DNSO without being able to exert any real influence on behalf of > those you
>> say you represent.
> First, I don't need you or anyone else to warn me about anything. I have
> quite enough experience of life, undoubtedly far more than you, to make
> up my own mind. I don't really see what provokes you to talk to me in
> this condescending fashion, and it certainly doesn't predispose me to
> pay attention to what you say. It is insulting to me, and will appear to
> anyone who knows me as the bad reflection on your own character and
> judgement that it is.
Michael, what you accuse Joop of here is exactly what you yourself do. You
speak in a condescending and insulting manner, and it really does not serve
Actually I do not think that Joop was acting in that fashion at all. I myself
have warned you about this recently, as well as a number of others. I think
all he has done is point something out in a clear, and concise I might add,
> As far as my being used as a legitimizing factor goes, that is all that
> most in this process have so far been capable of doing, with their
> myopia and arrogant egotism. This includes the IFWP, the ORSC, ICANN,
> and most every other group. I must accept and allow
> that, up to a point, in order to get my views and opinions expressed.
> But I don't equivocate these to please anyone. Many of my views are in
> disagreement with the prevailing views of the original organizers of
> DNSO.ORG, nevertheless I do not modify them in order to ingratiate
> myself or for any other reason. I express my convictions, and defend my
> constituency. The record of my postings and statements speaks clearly to
> my honesty.
I will take exception to that last comment. Your comments continue to be
dishonest in their misrepresentations of others. I have pointed this out on a
number of occasions.
> Regarding the Barcelona/Monterrey DNSO, I was, as I have said repeatedly
> here, treated fairly and with respect. My views were listened to and
> have, in my opinion, had an influence in favor of my constitutency, the
> not-for-profit users of the Internet. Since the DNSO (dnso.org) is the
> only forum where this has so far been possible, I naturally have a
> commitment to pursue that channel. If another avenue opens up, I will
> pursue it. But I will not leave off a constructive involvement with
> players in this process for any promises, or for a participation in a
> list or group where I am not treated with respect, or where the
> legitimacy of the public sector is denied. I would be a fool to do so.
Then why have you been so vociferous in your attacks on those who support an
alternative DNSO? You have resorted to personal attacks, and been VIGOROUSLY
attacking those who believe an alternative is needed.
Your words here bely your actions.
>> I would believe in an SO that actively goes out to include consumer
>> advocates, not as tokens that only need some ego-stroking to become >
>> pliant, but with the full intention to include valid and reasonable >
>> concerns of other stakeholders into policy frameworks.
> So would I. Where is it? So far I have seen none except for the
> DNSO.ORG, which has done what you say here, at least to some degree.
> Something is more than nothing. It is a place to start.
But as you can see, they are in an end game move now, without opening up. This
is not the start for them, this is the end. That is why someone has to act
now, and act decisively.
> Is the ORSC going to do this, after defining itself as an "Industry
> Trade Association" (capitals Einar Stefferud's). It doesn't look too
> likely, from my POV.
ORSC is just doing what CORE/PAB started as. They are organizing. What the
end result will be may be a far cry from the ORSC itself. ORSC is just one
group of stakeholders in their own process. But I believe they will stick to
that position, and not try to be the DOMINANT stakeholder in their own process
as it grows.
> BTW, what Kent Crispin and others have said is perfectly true: Einar
> Stefferud was given every opportunity to speak in Monterrey, more than
> any other newly-arrived person. He made presentations and circulated his
> papers freely among participants. He effected additions and changes to
> the application and influenced voting. He cannot say, if he speaks
> honestly, that the DNSO.ORG was not willing to include him and whomever
> he represents. I had a chance to speak with Stef in Monterrey, and I
> liked him and thought many of his ideas worthwhile. But I have to say,
> even if it offends him, that he is grandstanding now just as he did
> during the NewCo proposal period, only using the DNSO.ORG instead of the
> BWG and IANA as a fall-guy. Everyone who was present in Monterrey sees
> that. They aren't children. They aren't fooled.
I don't see it as grandstanding at all. If anything, he is just answering a
call that was made on these lists for an alternative group. The ORSC waited
quite long enough to see if another group would step forward to do what I and
others called for.
ORSC has the means, and when it became apparent no one else was, its members
decided to act.
PLEASE don't stoop to characterizing based on a limited set of facts and view
points. It does not serve any of our purposes, and only results in a clear and
accurate rebuttal to your comments.
> I'll take the risk of going further, and telling you that most of the
> Europeans, Latin Americans, and other non-United States participants in
> Monterrey are more experienced in negotiations and compromise than
> Americans, for the simple reason that they are forced all their life to
> cohabitate in a restricted geographical space with other peoples, and
> this makes them more acute observers and better judges of what
> constitutes the legitimate activity of organization and
> consensus-building. This is probably the reason that CORE and others
> have gravitated towards a Euro-centric organization: it permits
> intelligent discourse, which cannot occur in an environment where
> uneducated and inexperienced persons have the arrogance to overrun those
> who are better-informed or have better judgements. The United States has
> become a country where only arrogance, and not intelligence or
> experience, holds sway. That is not a useful environment for creating a
> worldwide Internet organization. It is the central problem with the
> present IFWP list, and with all organizations based in the U.S., and for
> that matter anywhere in the English-speaking world where ignorance and
> arrogance predominate. It is for this reason that Internet players from
> around the world will be easier with the DNSO.ORG rather than the
> DNSO.NET. No William Walshes will be at the meetings insisting that the
> public sector doesn't exist. No Jeff Williamses are there to repeat
> incessantly what others say. No Dave Crockers are present insulting
> others with their nastiness. There is civil discourse, and without it no
> DNSO or any other configuration can hope to gain support.
I will just point out that this is a favorite tactic of yours, to put words in
others mouth. AGAIN. I will caution you one more time, Michael, doing so in
the face of evidence to the contrary will only serve to discredit you, and
William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
Network Operations | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
firstname.lastname@example.orgemail@example.com| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
+1-(209)-493-6144 | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
Date: 20-Dec-98 / Time: 12:49:46