Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #148
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 13 2000        Volume 01 : Number 148

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:20:44 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 19:35 11/09/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 08:58 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>Mr Crocker' s sarcastic implication that we should have bowed and scraped
>>more, is... disturbing.
>
>
>If I had said anything remotely related to your assessment, I'd agree with 
>you.
>
>Perhaps you would care to cite text from me and explain how it means what 
>you above assert?
>
***********Here's your text
At 01:45 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>We deserve at least an answer stating why our petition has been stonewalled

such constructive presumptions and language have, no doubt, contributed 
greatly to IDNO's success.

d/
**********
Dave, 

Sarcasm , misunderstood as it can be, always gives you an opportunity to
backpedal.

You and Mr Crispin often make it sound as if you have an inside channel to
the Board. 
Since we are talking about the Board's (re)actions, my interpretation is a
logical one.

But enough of this. The burden to make clear what you meant is yours.

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:23:16 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced diversity and/or
dissent.

Well I think you can put that argument to rest.  It appears that since
I voted against the current Charter I have been revoked (or at least
my access to the polling booth was).

And lest anyone believe that the IDNO should be a constituency, let me
draw your attention to this portion of their charter :

Section 4.11 Loss of membership

I'll paraphrase this part, basically, any five members complaining
about any member force a vote on the member's right to continue being
a member.

Then:

4.11.3 The list -Assembly members together, if they number less than
100, form the Fair Hearing panel. After the accusation and the
defense, if any has been put forward, have been made available to
them, the Fair Hearing panel will be called to vote within 10 days. A
simple majority will decide on expulsion.

Basically less than half the membership can cause the expulsion of any
member.

The IDNO is not created to embrace diversity or dissent.  It is set up
to permit the owner (and have no doubt about it, he is an owner, not
simply a founder) to oust anyone who seriously challenges him and his
positions.

No constituency would ever be adopted which contains such rules, and
makes it so easy and simply to nullify the membership of other
constituency members.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                          mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:12:59 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 PM

> Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced diversity and/or
> dissent.

I don't recognize those words. I don't recall posting here for some
time.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:22:14 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

William,

> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 PM
> 
> Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced diversity and/or
> dissent.

I don't recognise those words.

> Well I think you can put that argument to rest.  It appears that since
> I voted against the current Charter I have been revoked (or at least
> my access to the polling booth was).
> 
> And lest anyone believe that the IDNO should be a constituency, let me
> draw your attention to this portion of their charter :

First of all, this is not a DNSO/GA issue. It's an IDNO internal issue.

> Section 4.11 Loss of membership
> 
> I'll paraphrase this part, basically, any five members complaining
> about any member force a vote on the member's right to continue being
> a member.

This is a direct result of past disruptive behavior.

> Then:
> 
> 4.11.3 The list -Assembly members together, if they number less than
> 100, form the Fair Hearing panel. After the accusation and the
> defense, if any has been put forward, have been made available to
> them, the Fair Hearing panel will be called to vote within 10 days. A
> simple majority will decide on expulsion.
> 
> Basically less than half the membership can cause the expulsion of any
> member.
> 
> The IDNO is not created to embrace diversity or dissent.  It is set up
> to permit the owner (and have no doubt about it, he is an owner, not
> simply a founder) to oust anyone who seriously challenges him and his
> positions.
> 
> No constituency would ever be adopted which contains such rules, and
> makes it so easy and simply to nullify the membership of other
> constituency members.

I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
principle and for the same reason.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:35:14 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Sorry, I thought this was on the IDNO list, where it belonged. I had no
idea that the DNSO/GA list had become the IDNO list.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:13 PM
> To: William X. Walsh; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?
> 
> 
> > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 PM
> 
> > Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced 
> diversity and/or
> > dissent.
> 
> I don't recognize those words. I don't recall posting here for some
> time.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:34:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:22:14 PM, you wrote:

> William,

>> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:23 PM
>> 
>> Someone on here (Roeland?) said the IDNO had embraced diversity and/or
>> dissent.

> I don't recognise those words.

Perhaps it was Dennis.

>> Well I think you can put that argument to rest.  It appears that since
>> I voted against the current Charter I have been revoked (or at least
>> my access to the polling booth was).
>> 
>> And lest anyone believe that the IDNO should be a constituency, let me
>> draw your attention to this portion of their charter :

> First of all, this is not a DNSO/GA issue. It's an IDNO internal issue.

The IDNO has purported itself (well, its owner has purported) to be
attempting to get the IDNO recognized as a constituency.  This has
direct bearing on that issue, and that makes it a GA issue, especially
since this point has been a matter of some discussion on this list
recently.

>> Section 4.11 Loss of membership
>> 
>> I'll paraphrase this part, basically, any five members complaining
>> about any member force a vote on the member's right to continue being
>> a member.

> This is a direct result of past disruptive behavior.

There is a vast different between rules of behavior and revocation of
membership.  One can have rules of civil behavior (ala the GA right
now), without having to include language that effectively lets less
than half of the membership remove anyone for any reason.

>> Then:
>> 
>> 4.11.3 The list -Assembly members together, if they number less than
>> 100, form the Fair Hearing panel. After the accusation and the
>> defense, if any has been put forward, have been made available to
>> them, the Fair Hearing panel will be called to vote within 10 days. A
>> simple majority will decide on expulsion.
>> 
>> Basically less than half the membership can cause the expulsion of any
>> member.
>> 
>> The IDNO is not created to embrace diversity or dissent.  It is set up
>> to permit the owner (and have no doubt about it, he is an owner, not
>> simply a founder) to oust anyone who seriously challenges him and his
>> positions.
>> 
>> No constituency would ever be adopted which contains such rules, and
>> makes it so easy and simply to nullify the membership of other
>> constituency members.

> I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
> protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
> would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
> Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
> gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
> principle and for the same reason.

An organization purporting itself to be a constituency which, by its
nature is the vehicle for expressions of one's rights, does not avail
itself of the means for removing its members so easily, and thus
effectively revoking their rights.

And, as noted above, there is a VAST difference between rules of civil
behavior, and enforcement of means of discipline short of banishment,
which is what the GA practices, and what the owner of the IDNO is
creating in order to prevent anyone who disagreed with him from having
a voice.

Further, he has shown by his very actions tonight that he has not
abandoned his repeated tendency to take unilateral action without
consultation, which tendency goes back to long before the split on the
IDNO Steering Committee (remember when he, after supposedly abdicating
in favor of the steering committee) practically ordered the removal of
Jeff Williams by the list manager without further consultation by the
Steering Committee?  It was only swift action by some SC members who
saw the problem with what Joop was ordering, and his not feeling
secure enough to rock the SC boat yet, that prevented that from
happening.  And then there is his refusal to place matters up for vote
by the steering committee, and intentionally delaying such votes, in
an effort to prevent them from coming forward, simply because he, a
non-member of said committee, did not agree with the issue.

In one action, Joop has acted on his own behalf in removing the voting
rights and access of a member of the IDNO, without consultation, and
without any authority under his so called charter.  He has repeated
shown his disdain for process, and from where I sit, I see that
nothing has changed.  Even this (very, very flawed) charter I have
very little faith that he will stick to it, except where it will suit
his purposes.   Where it doesn't suit his purposes, he will do as he
has always done, and act on his own behalf, take unilateral action,
and ignore the process.  Just like he did tonight.

This is not about personality, this is about reality.  Even setting
aside the issue of a constituency status NOT being granted to an
organization (no other constituency was formed that way), the IDNO is
tainted by the above issues, and by his own actions, he has shown that
nothing has changed in that regard.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:36:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:35:14 PM, you wrote:

> Sorry, I thought this was on the IDNO list, where it belonged. I had no
> idea that the DNSO/GA list had become the IDNO list.

Actually it belonged on the GA list, the bcc to the idno list was a
courtesy to the IDNO members, and to give them a chance to respond to
the issue.

The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
properly belonged on the GA list.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:55:05 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:36 PM
> 
> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:35:14 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I thought this was on the IDNO list, where it 
> belonged. I had no
> > idea that the DNSO/GA list had become the IDNO list.
> 
> Actually it belonged on the GA list, the bcc to the idno list was a
> courtesy to the IDNO members, and to give them a chance to respond to
> the issue.
> 
> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
> properly belonged on the GA list.

No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies is strictly
the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no power there.

You're just bringing it up here because we're dead tired of your
shinnanigans on the IDNO list. You also want to discredit the IDNO any
way that you can. Go ahead, knock yourself out. But, I'm on this list
too and am even more tired of seeing this drivel here, where it is even
decidedly off-topic. At least, on the IDNO list, it was on-topic.

Please, let's keep DNSO business to DNSO business and IDNO business to
itself. Or is it two lists that you want to disrupt?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:07:53 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
>> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
>> properly belonged on the GA list.

> No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies is strictly
> the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no power there.

It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
evident proof of.

I find it amusing the double standard you apply, Joop's posts are on
topic, criticisms aren't.

Spare me.  This is the kind of intolerance that the IDNO supporters
have become so known for.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:41:27 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:08 PM
> 
> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
> >> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
> >> properly belonged on the GA list.
> 
> > No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies 
> is strictly
> > the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no power there.
> 
> It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
> posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
> evident proof of.

There is a huge difference between talking about the IDNO and carrying
on IDNO internal debate, on the GA list. I'm sorry that you can't see
that. Oh well...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:52:22 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:41:27 PM, you wrote:

>> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:08 PM
>> 
>> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
>> >> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" constituency,
>> >> properly belonged on the GA list.
>> 
>> > No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies 
>> is strictly
>> > the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no power there.
>> 
>> It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
>> posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
>> evident proof of.

> There is a huge difference between talking about the IDNO and carrying
> on IDNO internal debate, on the GA list. I'm sorry that you can't see
> that. Oh well...

The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the
IDNO.   What I am sorry to see is that your attitude when criticism of
the IDNO is posted has not changed in many many months.  You try and
make it more about the poster than about the subject.  Let's try and
get back to the subject, for it has direct bearing on the creation of
a real structure for a real constituency.

You certainly see the problem with the current charter of the IDNO, do
you not?  It is fine for a group that is made to be conformist to the
owner's viewpoints.   But that is not what an organization or a
constituency is.

Let's take a US Congressman as an example.  His constituency is made
up of ALL the members of his constituency, regardless of their
political affiliate, regardless of whether they voted for him or for
someone else, regardless of how obnoxious or boisterous they are.

Of course, that does not prevent the Congressman from removing someone
from a townhall meeting for being uncivil or disruptive.  But that
does NOT mean that the person is no longer a constituent of the
Congressman's district.  It merely means that they were removed from
that forum until they can conform to accepted rules of civil behavior.

Do you see the difference, Roeland?

Do you see the excessive opportunity for abuse in the IDNO charter in
contrast to this?  Especially in light of the IDNO owner's past and
recent tendencies towards unilateral action?

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:51:06 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

At 22:22 12/09/00 -0700, Roeland wrote:

>I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
>protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
>would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
>Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
>gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
>principle and for the same reason.
>--

Roeland is right.  Ironically , WXW was the staunchest supporter of such
suspensions here in the GA. 
He is not even suspended from the idno-discuss list, but clearly he's not
an idno member any more.
An organization in the bootstrap stage is too vulnerable to allow such
"members". 
Mr Walsh has put himself outside what the IDNO stands for a long time ago,
ever since he declared it dead on all other lists including this one.

The last time, when he posted to this list :

>
>The IDNO should not be added.  It is not a constituency, and as it
>stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.
>
>No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
>That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
>setup.
>

he directly negated our ratified purpose and mission statement.
- ---------
1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the Domain name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) for all individual Domain Name Owners. We represent the
concerns of individuals who own domain names, rather than organizations.
These concerns include the wish to remain free from being classified as
commercial or non-commercial.

1.2. Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners , as
stakeholders in the Domain Name System (DNS), will have a say in all new
ICANN rulemaking that will affect their financial interest, on-line freedom
or security of existence. 

and

2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN
board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the
provisions of the ICANN Bylaws and with the US government's White Paper and
allow it to contribute 3 elected representatives from among its members to
the Names Council of the DNSO.
- --------
I he had any decency, he would have left on his own accord instead of
staying around to sabotage and discredit the organization.

art 4.11 is an emergency measure by which a constituency (or any on-line
organization)  made up of individuals can protect itself against loose
cannons.
A single individual has a lot of rights and power in the IDNO.
Consequently, the majority must have the rights and power to remove a
destructive 'member'.

4.11 is worth reading in full.  www.idno.org/organiz.htm 
Don't rely on a "summary".

Sorry to all for prolonging  this thread on the GA list.

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:11:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [idno] RE: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:51:06 PM, you wrote:

> At 22:22 12/09/00 -0700, Roeland wrote:

>>I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
>>protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
>>would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
>>Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
>>gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
>>principle and for the same reason.
>>--

> Roeland is right.  Ironically , WXW was the staunchest supporter of such
> suspensions here in the GA.

Nice editing job, Joop.  There is a VAST difference in the GA rules,
and the IDNO rules.  The GA rules do not void a persons membership in
the GA, merely their ability to participate in the forum they have
disruptive.

To compare the two is like comparing a prison sentence to the death
penalty.

> He is not even suspended from the idno-discuss list, but clearly he's not
> an idno member any more.

And who decided that, Joop?  I received the voting email, like every
other member.  You made that decision unilaterally.  Without any
consultation with the membership or anyone else.  Heck, Joop, you
didn't INFORM ME!

> An organization in the bootstrap stage is too vulnerable to allow such
> "members". 
> Mr Walsh has put himself outside what the IDNO stands for a long time ago,
> ever since he declared it dead on all other lists including this one.

> The last time, when he posted to this list :

>>
>>The IDNO should not be added.  It is not a constituency, and as it
>>stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.
>>
>>No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
>>That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
>>setup.
>>

> he directly negated our ratified purpose and mission statement.
> ---------
> 1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the Domain name Supporting
> Organization (DNSO) for all individual Domain Name Owners. We represent the
> concerns of individuals who own domain names, rather than organizations.
> These concerns include the wish to remain free from being classified as
> commercial or non-commercial.

> 1.2. Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners , as
> stakeholders in the Domain Name System (DNS), will have a say in all new
> ICANN rulemaking that will affect their financial interest, on-line freedom
> or security of existence. 

> and

> 2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN
> board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the
> provisions of the ICANN Bylaws and with the US government's White Paper and
> allow it to contribute 3 elected representatives from among its members to
> the Names Council of the DNSO.
> --------

NOTHING in that mission is in disagreement with me.  I merely see the
distinction between the IDNO and the "Individual Domain Name Owners
Constituency."  The two are not the same.   Everything else in the
mission statement is consistent with everything I have stood for and
supported.

Face it, YOU removed me from the membership because you don't like me,
and because I am the voice of dissent and do not agree with your every
word.

> I he had any decency, he would have left on his own accord instead of
> staying around to sabotage and discredit the organization.

> art 4.11 is an emergency measure by which a constituency (or any on-line
> organization)  made up of individuals can protect itself against loose
> cannons.
> A single individual has a lot of rights and power in the IDNO.
> Consequently, the majority must have the rights and power to remove a
> destructive 'member'.

Read previous message.  A constituency cannot remove a member who
meets the qualifications.  Rules of civil behavior on forums of the
constituency are entirely appropriate, but a constituent is a
constituent, regardless.

Your failure to understand that is why you will never form a
constituency.

> 4.11 is worth reading in full.  www.idno.org/organiz.htm
> Don't rely on a "summary".

Please read it, nothing I said was incorrect or misinterpreted.

But that doesn't change that it is flat our inappropriate for a
charter for a "constituency" or for any organization that claims to
stand for the protection of "rights."  The irony of it all is rather
amusing, much like your unilateral action to remove my membership
yesterday without any consultation or notice.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:46:16 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual domain name holders and the DNSO

At 10:20 AM 9/13/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 19:35 11/09/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >At 08:58 PM 9/11/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>Mr Crocker' s sarcastic implication that we should have bowed and scraped
> >>more, is... disturbing.
> >
> >If I had said anything remotely related to your assessment, I'd agree with
>***********Here's your text
>such constructive presumptions and language have, no doubt, contributed
>greatly to IDNO's success.
>
>Sarcasm , misunderstood as it can be, always gives you an opportunity to
>backpedal.

An interesting assessment of sarcasm as a speech act.  Not familiar with 
that feature of its use, nor with the basis for your belief.

Alas, the form of the speech act was not my question, but rather its nature 
and intent.

Nothing in what you quoted in any way pertains to bowing or scraping.  It 
is, of course, always significant when one reads such meaning into 
statements lacking the language and intent.

>You and Mr Crispin often make it sound as if you have an inside channel to
>the Board.

The word for that assessment is "paranoiac".  I have no such inside track 
and have made so statements indicating one.  Again, the assessment is 
therefore a matter of your own creativity.

d/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:05:59 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:52 PM
> 
> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 11:41:27 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >> From: William X. Walsh: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:08 PM
> >> 
> >> Tuesday, September 12, 2000, 10:55:05 PM, you wrote:
> >> >> The issue, the nature of what has been a "proposed" 
> constituency,
> >> >> properly belonged on the GA list.
> >> 
> >> > No, I don't think so. The creation of new consstituencies 
> >> is strictly
> >> > the pervue of the ICANN BoD. The /ICANN/DNSO/GA has no 
> power there.
> >> 
> >> It most certainly is a subject here, Roeland, as Joop's incessant
> >> posts of late on this list about the IDNO and its "application" are
> >> evident proof of.
> 
> > There is a huge difference between talking about the IDNO 
> and carrying
> > on IDNO internal debate, on the GA list. I'm sorry that you 
> can't see
> > that. Oh well...
> 
> The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
> removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the

Charter provision are not the pervue of the ICANN. If it were then why
not let the ICANN write all the charters? No, the directive is for those
orgs to "self-organize". This directive clearly removes ICANN oversight
from the candidate orgs charter creation. Even further, it is an ICANN
function and not a DNSO one.

As for the last point, an organization can select or deselect in any way
they please. That is their right. While your arguments may apply to the
AtLarge membership. I don't believe that they apply to the
constituencies. Otherwise, why have constituencies (which is a question
that I've been asking all along)? I haven't liked the constituency idea
from the start. But, if that's the way they want to play the game ...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:07:47 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 1:05:59 AM, you wrote:

>> The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
>> removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the

> Charter provision are not the pervue of the ICANN. If it were then why
> not let the ICANN write all the charters? No, the directive is for those
> orgs to "self-organize". This directive clearly removes ICANN oversight
> from the candidate orgs charter creation. Even further, it is an ICANN
> function and not a DNSO one.

They most certainly are, if they purport to be a constituency.  The
NCDNHC was approved an initial constituency, but was sent back to make
changes to their charter before being admitted.

> As for the last point, an organization can select or deselect in any way
> they please. That is their right. While your arguments may apply to the
> AtLarge membership. I don't believe that they apply to the
> constituencies. Otherwise, why have constituencies (which is a question
> that I've been asking all along)? I haven't liked the constituency idea
> from the start. But, if that's the way they want to play the game ...

The constituencies are not organizations, Roeland.  Show me one that
is.  The IDNO is an outside organization, like the ISOC.  The ISOC is
NOT a constituency.  The IDNO is NOT a constituency.

An organization certainly can select or deselect as they please.  But
a constituency is NOT an organization.  It doesn't even resemble one.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:15:51 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[8]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

> From: William X. Walsh: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 1:08 AM

> The constituencies are not organizations, Roeland.  Show me one that
> is.  The IDNO is an outside organization, like the ISOC.  The ISOC is
> NOT a constituency.  The IDNO is NOT a constituency.
> 
> An organization certainly can select or deselect as they please.  But
> a constituency is NOT an organization.  It doesn't even resemble one.

Let's see, charter, membership, voting rules ... smells like an org to
me...most other folks too.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:25:07 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[10]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

Hello Roeland,

Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 1:15:51 AM, you wrote:

>> From: William X. Walsh: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 1:08 AM

>> The constituencies are not organizations, Roeland.  Show me one that
>> is.  The IDNO is an outside organization, like the ISOC.  The ISOC is
>> NOT a constituency.  The IDNO is NOT a constituency.
>> 
>> An organization certainly can select or deselect as they please.  But
>> a constituency is NOT an organization.  It doesn't even resemble one.

> Let's see, charter, membership, voting rules ... smells like an org to
> me...most other folks too.

Shall I chastise you now or later for claiming to know what most other
folks think?

Sorry, Roeland, a constituency cannot be an organization.  I have
spelled out the many reasons why not, and provided every example
necessary to how you why.  You have ignored those, as you usually do
when you can't refute facts in a discussion.

I've said what I have to say about it.  There is no formal
organization of any constituency.   And no constituency has the
draconian rules of the IDNO.

But all of this is really moot.  The ICANN board would never approve
the IDNO as an constituency anyway.  I merely wanted to point out for
the newcomers why the IDNO issue is not as open and shut as Joop and
yourself may want it to be.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #148
************************