Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Fw:[atlarge-discuss] ALOC

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I am sorry If I did not make it more clear that it was the devil-to-outreach.
Certainly I meant it in a metaphorical sense.
I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

Dialogue is not anything that should ever be opposed.
Holding one's self out as a representative is quite another idea.
I think we have some 70+ nations here and to suggest that anyone represents us all, outside of our own work is probably not a good idea. Although this will come to pass.
Outreach is the concept of bringing others into the fold, not folding into others.

Thank you for pointing out the errors of my language usage.

Eric

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 21:12 -0700 2002/08/08, eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >Oh goodness,
> >
> >Absolutely conferring with Ester is not outreach but dead wrong.
> >This is not reaching the communities but sticking ones hand in the
> >mouth of the devil as far as outreach is concerned.  I personally
> >have been bit by this viper.
> >Cheat me once shame on you, cheat me twice, shame on me.
> >Get in bed with the cheat and triple shame on you and me.
> >VB, SS, DY and I have all been cajoled by the Denise/Ester Show.
> >
> >No we have authorized no one to do business with them.
> >What say ye Judith and Jefsey?
>
> Well, I'm not keen on characterizing anyone as the devil -- all humans have the potential for good or for evil, and I've been called a few names myself on occasion for having strong opinions and the nerve to express them colourfully.
>
> I agree that there's no good reason to call contact with ICANN or its subsidiaries and affiliates as "outreach". To me, that term means specifically extending a hand to members of the general public rather than entrenched institutions. The expression that springs to my mind for the latter is "negotiating from a position of strength" but we're not there yet, either.
>
> Finally, though, I think Eric is right that the membership has not mandated anyone to do business with ICANN but wrong if he thinks that means our elected panel can't talk to ICANN at all. Were that the case, we'd be handicapping ourselves badly by refusing to let our Panel keep abreast of discussions there.
>
> The big thing is for our Panel and anyone we delegate to participate in a particular discussion on our behalf to remember that they don't (at least, don't yet) have a mandate to *speak for* the membership. We've got to get organized well enough and quickly enough to have an organization with policies and procedures ratified by its members, and officers and directors elected to implement them and express them to the outside world. Until then,  our representatives have the option of consulting the membership by e-mail (since we do presumably have *that* database available) and calling for a specific mandate when one is needed.
>
> "HTH", as they say,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once
> they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


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