Re: [atlarge-discuss] Committee-work and Outreach

[NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>]

There he goes again, gettin out the dictionary. Judyth, forget him. No loger
worth the effort. We both should have listened before.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <espresso@e-scape.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Committee-work and Outreach


> Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
> espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
>
> > At 19:31 -0800 2002/10/27, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >> Actually, there are two domain names -- http://www.editors.ca and
http://www.reviseurs.ca (which could have been located with any search
engine) -- and each of the two involves multiple URLs linking to various
sections and documents.
> > >
> > >  Both of these refrenced URL's should anyone care to look into them
>closely as one of my staff and I did, will clearly see two things that do
>not support you original contention regarding committee's formation.
> > >1.) the actual URL's as listed are only the entry point for the actual
>referenced information which are really, http://www.editors.ca/welcome.htm
>(English Version) fro both of Judyth's URL references, french version also
>available. And
> > >2.) No reference of "Ad hoc" committee formation is listed for these
> > >references.
> > >
> > >  Hence we can accurately and clearly conclude that these two
> > >URL references, which I was already familiar with anyway, are
> > >not valid references for Judyths contention...
> >
> > I have no idea why Jeff needed assistance to access the welcome page
from http://www.editors.ca or http://www.reviseurs.ca but perhaps it's the
same reason why he has difficulty understanding what I write.
>
>   Well that is because I didn't need any.  But it is clear that your URL
reference
> was technically incorrect as you stated it, and further did not support in
even
> the most remote manner, you contention to which you provided such URL's
> that I requested previously on this now again modified thread.
>
> > The EAC/ACR Web site was not my creation and I didn't select the host
but since it comprises dozens of links to various pages, as well as multiple
links for the Online Directory of Editors and each regional branch, I
followed the usual practice of providing the entry-point URL and letting
each visitor decide for him/herself which links to pursue.
>
>   Indeed you did.  However as a reference to your felonious contention
they as
> stated were inaccurate.  In addition none of the links referenced from
your
> offered URL's support your contention.  Hence leaving your argument both
> invalid and obviously illegitimate in fact and therefore supporting my
> original contention that you are simply "Spinning" for purposes of
> seeming nefarious ends...  Such would therefore seem not advantageous
> to the outreach effort(s) that this organization desperately needs but
needs
> in a straight forward and aboveboard manner...
>
> >
> >
> > Anyway, in my message I specifically raised this site as an example of a
well-respected organization which does not insist that every single document
accessed through its site be hosted on the domain name's server.
>
>   That was not your original contention Judyth as this history of this
thread clearly
> outlines or shows.  Hence more spinning from you, Judyth...
>
> >
> >
> > I also specified (for Jeff's benefit, since I assume most people already
knew) that the organization naturally does not put all its committee lists
and working documents on public display since these are internal matters.
>
>   It they are transparent, open and accountable they do.  Of course there
are some
> that do not, and those are usually as an organization of an individual
membership
> makeup are shunned or largely considered of questionable legitimacy.
>
> >
> >
> > >> However, before you announce that I'm lying about being a member
(I've been one since 1984), please note that you can reach me from the
Quebec/Atlantic Canada Hotline link, as well as by trying to subscribe
(which you can't, since you're not a member) to our French-language mailing
list of which I am the list manager.
> > >
> > >  Wonderful!  Yet another form of Censorship.  How quaint.  None the
less
> > >as we [INEGRoup] have a number of editors in Canada, I am sure one of
> > >then can join and keep our organization abreast of these organizations
> > >interests, activities, and other endeavors as needed.  We may even have
> > >a members or two that are already members presently, I don't know...
> >
> > Jeff, it is hardly "censorship" for a professional association to
provide a forum where its members can discuss things amongst themselves.
>
>   I didn't say that it was.  What I said is clear above.  Your
misinterpretation
> here is of course of your own making and obviously skewed accordingly.
> However any membership based organization of individual members, that
> is in the formative stages, as ICANNATLARGE.ORG is now, such
> ML FOrums for this or these purposes, in order to meet good democratic
> principals, are open. transparent, and accountable.
>
> > It's an unmoderated list but open to members only.
>
>   Which list.  The discuss list has non-members subscribed Judyth.  Danny
> is one of those...  In any event, and regardless of the ML forum, proper
> and accountable practice would obviously dictate open and transparent
> participation and interaction with members and non-members alike.
> These non-members are known as guests Judyth...  Are you not familiar
> with that term???
>
> > If you want to join an association for Canadian editors and sign up for
both English and French lists and heckle me in French on the one I manage
from the technical end, that's up to you; however, you *must* do it in
French on that list, and I don't manage the English one.
>
>   As you know, I have a English to French translator.  However I am not
interested
> in these forums in that as I said I am sure we [INEGRoup] that will or are
> interested or already subscribed.  The latter of which I am not
specifically
> knowledgeable of...
>
> >
> >
> > >> >> Most committees in the non-profit world are collaborations among
people who have volunteered their time to accomplish some particular task.
> > >> >
> > >> >  Very true.  Hence in part why I am still a bit confused why you
feel that you should be paid for you volunteering or self appointing
yourself as
> > Secretariat of this organization.  ???  Not that I have a problem with
>that, just seems that it doesn't jive with this comment/ contention/
>statement...
> > >>
> > >> The confusion is evidently internal since at *no* point in any of my
postings did I suggest that anyone should pay me or any other member for
serving as secretary of a committee.
> > >
> > >  You did so indirectly yes Judyth.  In fact in this very thread you
did.  >You suggested that the secretariat should be a paid position.
> >
> > No, I didn't. I said that eventually, if the organization gets off the
ground and reaches the size it is hoping for, it may need to pay a permanent
office-body to handle the daily routine business.
>
>   Spinning again Here also Judyth.  You and the members here know this was
> not your original statement or even close to it.  But I am glad to see
that you
> have come to a more reasonable position on this meta issue..
>
> > That has nothing whatsoever to do with the elected Secretary of the
organization being paid (which, as I pointed out, is usually prohibited),
nor with any desire to be paid for volunteering to be recording secretary of
one working group.
>
>   Incorrect to the point of which indeed being paid has everything to do
with your
> individual interest, and that such a secretariat or either as WG or this
> organization as a whole.  It most certainly does have everything to do
with
> these two aspects regarding a secretariat position in either case.  Both
should
> be elected and paid positions if a reasonable job is to be expected from
> the person(s) to occupy either/or postion(s)...
>
> >
> >
> > I know I write reasonably clearly, Jeff, so perhaps the problem is in
your reading comprehension.
>
>   No you don't always as others have several times pointed out.  So the
problem
> is indeed yours to correct or work upon...
>
> > Otherwise, I can only assume your main purpose in calling me a liar
(repeatedly) is to discredit me.
>
>   Not at all.  In fact the contrary is my intent as I have several times
intimated
> indirectly and directly stated on a few occasions...  Hence it seems that
you
> "Level of paranoia" is growing with each exchange in posts on several
different
> threads now on this forum...
>
> > Once again I'll spell it out: I trust my fellow-members to draw their
own conclusions about this as well as everything else.
>
>   I do as well..  And a very few of them have done so properly, publicly.
>
> >
> >
> > >> Also, it was never suggested by me or anyone else that I should be
Secretary of this (quasi-)organization) -- I merely volunteered to be
recording secretary for WG-Outreach and Jefsey (rightly or wrongly) put me
on the subscription page for the Outreach mailing list under the heading
"Secretariat" so people would know who to e-mail if they had trouble
subscribing!
> > >
> > >  Yes.  And you accepted prematurely...  Very sad..  :(
> >
> > I'm not sure why you feel it was premature.
>
>   Because you were/are not elected, nor announced publicly of you interest
> of such...  But you did volunteer is a manner of just assuming you were
> in such a position much like Hans has" with being chair of the whole
> ICANNATLARGE.ORG organization.  Both of you are acting
> improperly as at least three of our "Panel" members have pointed
> our quite correctly and several members as well once they became
> aware...
>
> > I offered my services because it seemed we were ready to start doing rea
l work, and nobody but yourself objected.
>
>   Not true here either.  I have now three times pointed out others that
> have questioned such a self appointment.
>
> >
> >
> > If your goal was to ask for the recording secretary to be an elective
postion, why have you not made a motion to that effect either here or in
WG-Outreach or lodged a formal protest with the Panel?
>
>   I have done both.  I will do so again...
>
> >
> >
> > If your goal, on the other hand, was to waste everybody's time and
prevent any work from getting done, you have failed miserably, though I've
spent far too much time responding to your mis-statements and innuendos.
>
>   No innuendoes, just cold hard facts.  I am not interested in the
secretariat
> function from being started or "done".  I am interested that such a
position
> follow or democratic principals and such a position be filled by anyone
> that volunteers and announces such openly and than can stand for election.
> You see Judyth, as I have now stated twice I have no problem with you
being
> the secretariat, just that you or anyone perform that function be elected
> and acceptable to the whole membership, of in the case of any WG
> by the members of that WG...  Pretty simple really!  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > >> Our fellow-members can draw their own conclusions about our
conversations without recourse to the courts, and I'll gladly abide by their
judgment.
> > >
> > >  Yes they can.  I however may not.
> >
> > That is a decision to be made by each individual according to his or her
conscience. We are all here voluntarily and are free to quit if we don't
like what's happening.
>
>   Indeed true.
>
> >
> >
> > >> >> Would you honestly prefer that these things not be done? and, if
so, why on earth did you volunteer to help do them???
> > >> >
> > >> >  I did not volunteer to implement Richards suggestions.  I
volunteered
> > >> >to improve outreach, aid in funding, and assist in DNS issues for
this
> > >> >organization...
> > >>
> > >> As anyone can see from the archives, the WG-Outreach will be dealing
with recruiting and retention of members, developing relations with other
organizations, etc. rather than funding or DNS matters. (We do have a WG-DNS
but not yet a WG-Funding.)
> > >
> > >  Yes we have a WG-DNS.  And it seem extremely backwards that we do,
> > >and yet to not have a WG-Funding or Funding Committee...
> >
> > You might like to ask yourself why you are the only person who seems to
feel the need for funding before we are in any position to prepare a budget
or state what the money would be used for.
>
>   Funding is a totally separate function or endeavor than budgeting.  We
need
> all the $$ we can get presently, hence to worry or be concerned about
> how such $$ are to be used, is secondary at this juncture.  And such a
> budgeting function would be separate from the Funding needs or need
> at present.  That meaning that a WG-Budget or a Budget committee
> is also greatly needed as well...
>
> >
> >
> > >> Merely having a registration form at icannatlarge.com for people to
stumble on more-or-less accidentally is unlikely to lead to a massive
increase in membership, now or later.
> > >
> > >  We also had one for icannatlarge.org as well until yet again
>icannatlarge.org was snatched..
> > >
> > >> Those who do land there and choose to register are most welcome, of
course, but they are unlikely to justify a claim that the organization
speaks for the worldwide constituency of Internet users.
> > >
> > >  I agree here of course. But that should be or goal to a degree as
Richard
> > >has clearly posted about, and to which I, and it seems a 1000+ others
>agree.
> >
> > Actually, it was my impression that most people who posted anything on
the subject were aware that "outreach" involves more than a Web form and
pious hopes that people will find it. At the time the WG-Outreach was first
set up, we already had the form but wanted to "reach out" to Internet users
around the world. Some of us, at least, already have experience in the
possible means of doing so and are making suggestions and collecting
information to that end.
>
>   As I have also already done this some months before you were even a
member,
> and sense that time ongoing to the present as well...
>
> >
> >
> > It seems your own part in that effort may consist largely of criticizing
our efforts to do that, and perhaps eventually informing your INEgroup
members of the URL of the registration page.
> >
> > >> If you'd rather trust to the form to do the job automatically, you
can >certainly say so here and within WG-Outreach.
> > >
> > >  I would rather that all of the members that wish to, and the more the
>better, would as volunteers, do some door knocking.  And I mean the
>physical kind of door knocking...
> >
> > That might make sense in terms of the "montreal.qc.atlarge.ca" -- though
I'm  partly disabled and couldn't possibly go around to knock on 3 million
doors if I wanted to -- but it is even less practical as a means of
contacting those in other places.
>
>   Except in part that montreal.qc.atlarge.ca doesn't even exist presently,
I fail
> to see the relevance of mentioning it in any context at this time.  I also
reckon
> to a senator in Georgia presently that is running for re-election whom is
> a quadriplegic I fail to see how such a disability would unduly impede
> such "Door Knocking" as I suggested.  He seems to do it pretty well and
> has for a number of years...
>
> > This organization(-to-be) has set out to do something on a worldwide
scale and specifically for Internet users, so surely we should consider the
possibility of using the Internet effectively???
>
>   A very good idea.  One of many that you and many others have thus
> far put forward.
>
> >
> >
> > >> Personally and as a member of WG-Outreach, I would advocate that we
make sure new members of this group know their input is welcome and that one
virtue of committee-work-by-e-mail is the fact that there are always enough
seats at the table.
> > >
> > >  I agree.  And I always have...  In fact as a WG, we should always
keep
> > >things open and transparent, as well as absolutely accountable.
> > >
> > >> "Many hands make light work" and multiple brains applied to a problem
are undoubtedly better (and more democratic) than just a few.
> > >
> > >  Also very true, and has always for many many years been my
contention.
> >
> > By the way, Jeff, exactly what is it that the 127,000+ INEgroup members
do?
>
>   The list of what we ae doing is long, too long to list out completely
> here.  But we aid in building ecommerce businesses around the globe,
> to date several hundred.  We provide leadership training and mentoring
> for inspired and enthusiastic stakeholders/users that are or show
> as particular interest.  We aid in gaining funding for a number
> of underprivileged school systems of Internet and computer
> skills education, such is in the Tennessee and Ohio valley as well
> as other regions of the globe that are particularly financially
> depressed.  We have also been ask and are in the process
> of working with a number of of governments, most especially
> Canada, in developing more secure, and integrated IT networks
> in remote areas...  The list goes on and on and on.
>
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be a URL for your organization, though people have
posted a number of URLs which mention them, and I'd be interested in seeing
the other side of the story. Off-list would be fine.
>
>   No there has near been a specific URL for our organization.  I have
> outlined that a number of times if you had been paying attention
adequately
> you would know that.  Evidently given this question, you haven't been.
> We will likely never have a specific URL as our structure is somewhat
> along the lines of what Jefsey has suggested for this organization, but
> different in that there no central URL/DN is envisioned at this time.
> From a marketing and outreach stand point, our stretigic structure
> has worked quite well for quite some time now...
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Judyth
> >
> > ##########################################################
> > Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> > Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> > ##########################################################
> > "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> > ##########################################################
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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