[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] RE: [ALSC-Forum] icannatlarge.com security issue
- To: <email@example.com>, "At-Large Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [ALSC-Forum] icannatlarge.com security issue
- From: "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:08:08 -0700
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
Danny Younger wrote:
>When it gets to the point that participants in a debate become labeled as
>pariahs and paid saboteurs by their adversaries, then an honest exchange of
>views no longer has any merit -- you cannot hold discussions with those
>are not prepared to be rational.
Pardon me, Danny, but you started the name-calling by disparaging our
organization, and the democratic process it is following, and then, in
refusing to join us, spewed out more flagrant insults. By doing so you
attack our organizations' members.
Unlike you, most of us are reasonably certain that any process the current
ICANN management puts forth to "organize" the At Large is yet another
exercise in deflecting us into non-productive paths. In evidence of this, I
don't think it is a coincidence that ICANN wasn't even discussing *any* At
Large involvement at all until our self-organizing efforts began gathering
steam. Then rather than approach us -- a group that was being organized by
the very people in *their own* forum that have been most vocally and
consistently calling for an At Large organization! -- they choose instead to
ignore us and start up their own process on a crash basis, lead by a person
known to be hostile to the often-stated aims of our group's members, with a
short suspense to gather info that was set well after our organizing
timeline had been clearly posted.
You say that ICANN had no obligation to honor our timeline. I disagree.
Look at our membership roles and compare them to the At-Large Study forum
list. You'll see many of the same names listed on both. And I imagine that
if you were able to access the original At Large roster (that ICANN won't
even let its own board members see!), many of the names in our organization
would reside there as well. And I have no doubt that many of the names on
that roster would join us if ICANN were to send a one-time message to the
original At Large list pointing them to us. I'm sure these facts are not
lost on ICANN. In fact, I imagine that our self-organization was the *last*
thing they wanted to see happen. If anyone is trying to distract us from
the real task ahead of us, it's them. And you, spreading FUD.
As for rationality, who is the more rational: you, asking us to once again
participate in a process run by those who have continually and consistently
broken faith with us (not to mention California contract law, if Karl is to
be believed!); or us, who are trying to build something positive, open and
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com