Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end"

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good morning, Jeff:

    I Thank you for your comments and, accept your judgments at face value.

    However, since 90 percent or more of the people that I understand we
wish to represent will fall into the category of those easily turned off by
aggressive rudeness and a less than professional leadership image... And,
since most will also be supportive only to the extent that we may count
their numbers...  By far the majority will fit within your "wimp"
description.  To write that we don't need this large majority of members and
that they will be a "detriment", leaves me wondering who it is that you
expect our organization to represent.

    I would like to also add that your references to the less than civilized
demeanor of our American Political establishment may well be accurate, but
you seem to forget that most of the world (which we purport to represent)
does not reside in America or behave in, or even understand, the lack of
civil intercourse in American public affairs.

    I have learned that there is a crossposting prohibition on some of the
lists that you have copied, so I have limited this response to to the
involved parties and the atlarge discuss list.

Best regards, Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
Cc: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <declan@well.com>;
<politech@politechbot.com>; "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@dnso.org>;
"atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
post on "self-regulation's end"


> Ron and all stakeholders of interested parties,
>
> Ron Sherwood wrote:
>
> > Good evening, Jeff:
> >
> >     Thank you for your comments and explanation of Richards, talents.
His
> > replies to my messages certainly support your position.
>
>   In the language of diplomacy which yo seem to have such a strong
> and obviously needful attachment with, Than YOU for your consideration
> of my response.  However I see that in the remaining part of your post
> below, your comment above seem not to reign true or accurate as
> you state it.  Therefor leaving the unfortunate and rather distasteful
> disguise of being deceptively and deceitfully agreeable in it...
>
> > As wrote in my last
> > message:
> >
> >     "I do bow to your experience with the people with whom you are
> > corresponding. I do not have your history of personal contact with these
> > people and, if you have proof that the "in-your-face" attacks really
work,
> > who am I to argue with success?"
>
>   It is exactly Richard's and many others "in your face" confrontation's
> with honesty, that have been somewhat successful.  The distasteful and
> inaccurate use of the term "Attacks" is neither diplomatic in this
context,
> Ron, nor is it productive.  Ergo, for someone whom touts the need for
> more diplomatic couching of question such a Richard posed, it would
> seem that you only wish to point the finger at him, in this instance, in
order
> to enhance your desire for a more diplomatic approach that lacks the
> very diplomatic language you espouse to desire to be used.  I personally
> fine that remarkable and also rather negatively extraordinary...
>
> >
> >
> >     However I also explained my perspective:
> >
> >     "My input is from a different perspective.  I joined this
organization
> > believing that it was to represent those Internet users who had been
> > disenfranchised by the change in ICANN policy that eliminated existing
> > representation on the ICANN Board of Directors.
>
>   Many feel as you do here.  However this forum is a good place to
determine
> a strategy for addressing this pressing concern, but not a place where
such
> a concern can be actually addressed, as Nancy J. Victory clearly indicated
> in here stated remarks on June 12, to the US Senate.  Rather Ron, such
> remarks/concerns should seemingly be directed to the GAC and/or
> Nancy J. Victory herself.
>
> >  Over the past few months, I
> > have seen much internal bickering and name calling, personal attacks and
> > language that has painted a less than professional picture of the
fledgling
> > organization.
>
>   Indeed you have, as have I heard name calling, bickering, and the like
> on this and other forums for this effort be put forth.  Many times such
> bickering is quite refreshing as it is unabashed and not tainted in
> sheepish diplomatic language so s to promulgate or unnecessarily
> extend discussion and debate to no known ends, but rather to
> clearly state where or what direction is most likely to be successful
> such a direct, indiscreet, and unabashed confrontation..
>
> > I have read many messages, the tone of which would discourage
> > potential members from ever joining, much less participating in, our
work.
>
>   Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.  However what seems to
> be more of a problem with gaining membership for ICANNATLARGE.COM
> is the fact that as an organization it has not known legitimacy that was
stated
> originally by Joop and Pinder as immediate must do tasks to be completed.
>
> >
> >
> >     And I added:
> >
> >     "It is my personal opinion that, if we are to grow from a few
hundred
> > members with a couple of dozen participants, to a million members with
top
> > quality representation, we need to elevate the language of our official
> > communications to a level that will be taken seriously by other leaders,
and
> > by the government and pseudo government representatives with whom we are
> > bound to deal."
>
>   Government and pseudo government representatives clearly understand
> blunt 'In your face" language as is plainly evident in debates on CSPAN,
> for instance in the Well of the Senate, as well as on the Floor of the
House
> of Representatives.  Indeed on 9/12 in NYC the president menced
> no words when he made i clear that he understood the feelings of
> the American People and especially the poeple of New York City
> after the terrorists attack on the World Trade Center Towers...
> So Ron, Diplomatic language comes in many forms, and has many
> tenses as well as embraces many styles, such as Richards...
>
> >
> >
> >     It was the tone of Richards letter to Mr. Sims that triggered a
response
> > to the picture painted by others.
>
>   Yes this was unfortunately but plainly obvious.  However your response
> to Richard was plainly misguided or inappropriate in its conjecture.
>
> > I hope that my message, and your
> > explanation, satisfies the many "wimps" who's support we will need to
become
> > viable. Thank you for enlightening me.
>
>   Wimps support no one, not even themselves.  Hence, the need as you put
it
> for their support is not only unfounded, but very possibly a detriment...
>
> >
> >
> > Regards, Ron Sherwood
> >



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de