Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some points of view - Limits and common sense

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

Dear Mauro:

I, for one am delighted to read your posts.  There are other persons on this
list who's native tongue is not English (Sotiris [Greek] and Jeff Williams
[Texan], for example) and who will have greater difficulty with your words
than I do.  However, since I have no other language than English and I am in
awe of anyone who is courageous enough to attempt to communicate in my
tongue, I will certainly welcome your input.  If I have any doubts about
your intent, I will ask you to re-phrase.

Please don't let those among us who suffer from the belief that anyone
without their proficiency in a specific language should be excluded from
participating.  We really do need the diverse representation.  I don't
expect you to be writing our by-laws (unless we choose to incorporate in a
country where you are fluent in the language and can provide suitable
translation services), but I welcome your perspective of the global issues
that we need to address and your willingness to work in a language that does
not come easily to you.  I trust your English will improve rapidly as a part
of this effort.

Best regards, Ron Sherwood



----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
To: "A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>
Cc: "@Large List" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; <micheal@beethoven.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some points of view - Limits and common sense


> Your English is as bad (if not worse) than Jefsey's.  I did not
> understand your post.  How do you expect yo work on a panel whose
> primary language will be English when your English is so poor?
>
> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> A/S Mauro D. Ríos wrote:
>
> >Dear Mitchael,
> >
> >Allow me to differ with you.
> >
> >- I wonder: when you were chosen, if you have been it, who did vote
> >for you, did they know you personally?. Or did they make an act of
> >trust for your references, your performance in other places and
> >organizations, did they observe your currículum and did they conclude
> >that you were a very good candidate?
> >
> >- If this organization will base the participation of the new members
> >on the antiquity in the same organization, why didn't we create a
> >private and exclusive club for membership and invitation?. For what
> >reason to have thousands of members if alone spectators and people
> >will be forgotten to those that we will veto their performance for
> >that you/they are new?. And we will let them them to accumulate years
> >(what doesn't mean knowledge neither aptitude) before allowing them to
> >enter to some door.
> >
> >- Does the one that a person doesn't have experience in an
> >organization, make it ignorant of the matter?
> >
> >- In my case I am member of ICANN for years, with low profile, but
> >with active participation in other organizations and institutions
> >linked Internet.
> >
> >- If we will have in consideration only the contributions that each
> >person has made to @Large, do we erase him the currículum of a blow,
> >do we ignore the rest of merits and activities that she has had in
> >another place?
> >
> >- Is democracy the one that only remembers its members when the votes
> >are needed?
> >
> >- Can it be said that @Large the representative of the users of
> >Internet will be if the directors are eternally the same ones?.
> >(Although they were heroes of Internet and this creature's parents?)
> >
> >- For what reason did they summon us?, for what reason to be bothered
> >in calling to new nominated if they have them so much fear?
> >
> >- The new ones possible spies are!?. Who guaranteed us that who today
> >they occupy the main seats (in ICANN, @Large, ISOC, R.A.L.O., etc),
> >spies or bad people were not when they called each other to vote them
> >in last years?. They asked us us to trust them for that you/they told
> >us that they were good that had many merits that were physical people
> >and that they will work for the organization. Nobody knew them, except
> >their nearer friends and the co-workers, but from these latitudes we
> >had to trust in that the very little information that we had of all
> >them and that we could verify it was correct.
> >
> >- These elections have been very questioned. It has been said that
> >they are illegitimate and that there are not guarantees. On the
> >contrary I have not said anything for that people that are organizing
> >it and controlling, they inspire me trust, for their acts, for their
> >form of to proceed and to act, I trust the information that I know
> >about them and in the references that I have been able to verificaren
> >Internet and with other people that assure who are. I have left doubts
> >and things that will improve in the next elections, but it is
> >impossible to have the total security that there are not minimum
> >irregularities.
> >
> >- Who does it guarantee me that you are not an it spies of ICANN or
> >ISOC that is trying to avoid new people to enter to the directive
> >positions of @Large?, who does it guarantee me that you won't create a
> >Panel that governs for an indefinite period?. They will surely tell me
> >that many people would speak to your favor and they would give me very
> >good arguments to defend and to certify that you are of trust. They
> >would give me hundred of websites that they mention your name and your
> >work. You would send me your picture in several events and next to
> >famous and reliable people. Why then, cannot you apply those same
> >approaches for new people in to the organization?.
> >
> >- Fortunately the decision is in many more hands than only ours, it is
> >in the hands of all the members.
> >
> >- In your case I don't have doubts of who you are, it is enough to
> >write your name in a searcher and to see the participation that you
> >have. But even so, can I trust you?
> >
> >- And the fact that differs with you is not reason for not affirming
> >that I am for sure we could work very well together in a team.  I
> >would not vote you for that differ with your vision, but not for that
> >don't trust in you or in your achievements and work capacity.  The
> >work in team = to make concessions and to reach agreements.
> >
> >a hug
> >Mauro. -
> >
> >
> >----- Mensaje original -----
> >De: Micheal Sherrill
> >Para: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> >Enviado: lunes, 26 de mayo de 2003 19:42
> >Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some points of view - Limits and common
> >sense
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello Mauro:
> >
> >I understand your argument.  But, I do not agree.  You have only
> >contributed to this organization for the past two weeks.  Although we
> >definitely need new blood and we definitely need new energy, we also
> >definitely do not need ringers.  Ringers is an American slang word for
> >one that enters a competition under false representations.  For all I
> >know you might be someone that has been sent by ICANN to win a seat on
> >the panel and then follow their directives to prevent this group from
> >being a force within ICANN.  You are correct, it is a matter of trust.
> >And I do not trust someone I do not know.  I am not going to hand this
> >organization to someone I do not know.  You need to earn my trust.
> >That trust does not come from a mere two weeks acquaintance before the
> >election.  I would like to be able to trust you and vote for you.
> >Stay around and contribute and I may vote for you in the next
> >election.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >
> >Micheal Sherrill
> >
> >
> >---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >From: "A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>
> >Date:  Mon, 26 May 2003 13:04:16 -0300
> >
> >Dear all,
> >
> >To suggestion of some of you, I reiterate my message.
> >
> >Thanks to the friends that made me notice that the "subject" in
> >Spanish
> >could make that they didn't open the message. And thanks to all those
> >that
> >supported the comments personally.
> >
> >greetings,
> >Mauro.-
> >
> >
> >-----Mensaje original-----
> >De: A/S Mauro D. Ríos [mailto:mdrios@adinet.com.uy]
> >Enviado el: Domingo, 25 de Mayo de 2003 04:22 p.m.
> >Para: @Large List
> >Asunto: [atlarge-discuss] Algunos puntos de vista
> >
> >Dear all,
> >
> >(en español al final)
> >
> >[=] In the last days I have seen put on the discussion table many
> >options to verify the identity of people (members and candidates).
> >
> >Most presents lacks of credibility in some point. The digital
> >certificates are not always the best solution, how it was already seen
> >for that many don't make the physical person's verification and they
> >only certify an email. In other occasions is not demanded to the one
> >that requests a certificate, any voucher of their physical existence.
> >And the list of points against this solution extends and many of the
> >members have described them very well.
> >
> >The identifications of images have the problem of being manipulated
> >very easily. Even if the image is of an official identification as the
> >license of driving or another public service.
> >
> >The telephone, how it was already demonstrated, it generates doubts on
> >who makes the call and who receives it and of who verifies that the
> >call was made indeed.
> >
> >The services like PayPal have presented a lot of discussion.
> >
> >On the other hand the fact of to offer personal information and to
> >pay, although it is little money, to obtain the certification, of any
> >type, it is a problem that should also be mentioned.
> >
> >Note to part: In my country there is an official service of personal
> >digital certification, where the steps are carried out in person and
> >the person should go to the place to obtain her certificate. But it is
> >not common this type of organizations in the rest of the world and
> >many times the costs are high.
> >
> >I think that there is not certain neither invincible system. If they
> >pay attention, all the systems approach to a point where the trust in
> >people is the important thing, the trust in the person that says to be
> >who is or in people that attest for another. If we don't trust people
> >at least a little, although we don't share their ideas, we will never
> >advance.
> >
> >As I have already mentioned, the verification of the identity of a
> >person won't be able to be a magic solution and it should gather to a
> >group of methods and procedures.
> >
> >[=] Another topic is that of the participation of the members,
> >especially I worry about the new members and the candidates for the
> >first time.
> >
> >Several people have argued that it should not be voted by somebody new
> >or to vote for somebody that has not had an active participation
> >lately.
> >
> >I find this a terrible concept and completely contrary to the spirit
> >of @Large. This becomes a circle of bad habits and a domain group in
> >very few people's hands, the same ones always. The Democracy of @Large
> >is demolished and this becomes a dictatorship.
> >
> >Receive my congratulations and recognition people with impeccable
> >trajectory in ICANN and @Large. Without doubts in @Large have heroes
> >(to name them in some way), but I am for sure the spirit of those same
> >people is to give participation to the rest of the community,. it is
> >for that reason that @Large exists, it is for that that we are here,
> >it doesn't stop another thing.
> >
> >On the other hand, the fact that a person is new as active
> >participant, doesn't mean that she is an ignoramus in the matter, or
> >that in her CV is not seen a trajectory of merits and achievements for
> >the community of Internet. Perhaps not in ICANN or @Large, but yes in
> >other environments of global work. To ignore this is to minimize our
> >members.
> >
> >"I don't vote for anybody that doesn't know personally". I would ask
> >to those people if when they went candidates to some of the
> >organizations where they participate who vote for them we knew them
> >personally. How did they arrive to the positions where deservedly they
> >are or were they the first time?. Who did vote for these people?, were
> >all their voters intimate friends?.
> >
> >Another related point is that of the participation of regions or
> >places, it is not necessary to be genius to realize that the
> >participation circles also in this aspect they are reduced. How will
> >we incentivate to those regions or small countries to participate if
> >we are announcing that to our club they enter alone those that we know
> >in person?. for what reason will they participate if they will be only
> >spectators?. Spectator, for moments, of a dramatic movie.
> >
> >Many tests that can take to extend our trust in people exist. Internet
> >cannot be the best means to check the real existence of a person, but
> >a lot of information exists in the net that helps to have a level of
> >enough trust.
> >
> >[=] The courteous thing, doesn't remove the valiant thing (proverb).
> >for that reason it is that I don't find well that the differences of
> >ideas finish it is always people's disqualifications, discussions,
> >fights off-Topic, insults, etc..
> >
> >The diplomacy makes big to the men, the humility makes them bigger
> >still. We can differ but without insulting us, we can discuss but
> >without disqualifying other people. What does it motivate to be
> >reactionary to some people?, the insecurity in if same and in their
> >ideas?.
> >
> >Let us try to work with respect. The list has filled with answers and
> >answers and answers and.. of last or eternal discussions.
> >
> >It is certain that there are many points to those that should find
> >solution, but we go for parts, a step at the same time. The voting is
> >in road, calms down to all. There is a lot of work for before. The
> >future Panel will have difficult tasks and he needs of a lot of
> >support, of those who will share its ideas and of those who differ.
> >
> >Cordially,
> >Mauro. -
> >
> >(SPANISH-ESPAÑOL) :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
> >
> >[=] En los últimos días he visto poner sobre la mesa de discusión
> >muchas opciones para verificar la identidad de las personas (miembros
> >y candidatos).
> >
> >La mayoría presenta carencias de credibilidad en algún punto. Los
> >certificados digitales no siempre son la mejor solución, como ya se
> >vio, por que muchos no hacen una verificación de la persona física y
> >solamente certifican un email. En otras ocasiones no se le exige al
> >que solicita un certificado, ningún comprobante de su existencia
> >física. Y la lista de puntos en contra de esta solución se extiende y
> >muchos de los miembros las han descrito muy bien.
> >
> >Las identificaciones de imágenes tienen  el problema de ser muy
> >fácilmente manipuladas. Aun si la imagen es de una identificación
> >oficial como la licencia de conducir u otro servicio público.
> >
> >El teléfono, como ya se demostró, genera dudas sobre quien hace la
> >llamada y quién la recibe y de quien verifica que la llamada se hizo
> >efectivamente.
> >
> >Los servicios como PayPal han presentado mucha discusión.
> >
> >Por otro lado el hecho de brindar información personal y pagar, aunque
> >sea poco dinero, por obtener la certificación, de cualquier tipo, es
> >un problema que también debe mencionarse.
> >
> >Nota a parte: En mi país hay un servicio oficial de certificación
> >digital personal, donde los trámites se realizan en persona y la
> >persona debe ir al lugar a obtener su certificado. Pero no es común
> >este tipo de organizaciones en el resto del mundo y muchas veces los
> >costos son elevados.
> >
> >Yo pienso que no hay sistema infalible ni invencible. Si prestan
> >atención, todos los sistemas se aproximan a un punto dónde la
> >confianza en las personas es lo relevante, la confianza en la persona
> >que dice ser quién es o en las personas que atestiguan por otra. Si no
> >confiamos al menos un poco en las personas, aunque no compartamos sus
> >ideas, no vamos a avanzar nunca.
> >
> >Como ya he mencionado, la verificación de la identidad de una persona
> >no podrá ser una solución mágica y debe reunir a un grupo de métodos y
> >procedimientos.
> >
> >
> >[=] Otro tema es el de la participación de los miembros, especialmente
> >me preocupan los nuevos miembros y lo candidatos por primera vez.
> >
> >Varias personas han argumentado que no se debería votar por alguien
> >nuevo o votar por alguien que no ha tenido una participación activa
> >últimamente.
> >
> >Esto me parece un concepto bárbaro y totalmente contrario al espíritu
> >de @Large. Se convierte en un círculo de vicios y un grupo de dominio
> >en manos de muy pocas personas, las mismas de siempre. Se derriba la
> >Democracia de @Large y se convierte en una dictadura.
> >
> >Reciban mis felicitaciones y reconocimiento las personas con impecable
> >trayectoria en ICANN y @Large. Sin dudas en @Large han héroes (por
> >nombrarlos de alguna forma), pero estoy seguro que el espíritu de esas
> >mismas personas es darle participación al resto de la comunidad, . es
> >por eso que existe @Large, es para eso que estamos aquí, no para otra
> >cosa.
> >
> >Por otro lado, el hecho que una persona sea nueva como participante
> >activo, no significa que sea un ignorante en la materia, o que en su
> >CV no se vea una trayectoria de méritos y logros para la comunidad de
> >Internet. Tal vez no en ICANN o @Large, pero sí en otros ámbitos de
> >trabajo global. Desconocer esto es menospreciar nuestros miembros.
> >
> >"Yo no voto por nadie que no conozca personalmente". Yo les
> >preguntaría a esas personas si cuando ellas fueron candidatos a alguna
> >de las organizaciones donde participan, quienes votamos por ellos los
> >conocíamos personalmente. ¿Cómo llegaron a los puestos dónde
> >merecidamente están o estuvieron la primera vez?. ¿Quiénes votaron por
> >estas personas?, ¿eran todos sus votantes amigos íntimos?.
> >
> >Otro punto relacionado es el de la participación de regiones o
> >lugares, no hace falta ser genio para darse cuenta que los círculos de
> >participación también en este aspecto son reducidos. ¿Cómo vamos a
> >incentivar a esas regiones o pequeños países a participar si estamos
> >anunciando que a nuestro club entran solo los que conocemos en
> >persona?. ¿Para qué van a participar si van a ser solamente
> >espectadores?. Espectador, por momentos, de una película dramática.
> >
> >Existen muchas pruebas que pueden tomarse para extender nuestra
> >confianza en las personas. Internet puede no ser el mejor medio para
> >comprobar la existencia real de una persona, pero existe mucha
> >información en la red que ayuda a tener un nivel de confianza
> >suficiente.
> >
> >[=] Lo cortés, no quita lo valiente (refrán). Por eso es que no me
> >parece bien que las diferencias de ideas terminen siempre es
> >descalificativos personales, discusiones, peleas off-Topic, insultos,
> >etcétera.
> >
> >La diplomacia hace grande a los hombres, la humildad los hace más
> >grandes aún. Podemos discrepar sin insultarnos, podemos discutir sin
> >descalificar a las demás personas. ¿Qué motiva ser reaccionario a
> >algunas personas?, ¿la inseguridad en si misma y en sus ideas?.
> >
> >Tratemos de trabajar con respeto. La lista se ha llenado de respuestas
> >y respuestas y respuestas y .. de discusiones pasadas o eternas.
> >
> >Es cierto que hay muchos puntos a los que debemos encontrar solución,
> >pero vayamos por partes, un paso a la vez. La votación está en camino,
> >tranquilicémonos, Hay mucho trabajo por delante. El futuro Panel
> >tendrá tareas difíciles y necesita de mucho apoyo, de quienes
> >compartirán sus ideas y de quienes discrepen.
> >
> >Cordialmente,
> >Mauro.-
> >---
> >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/2002
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >*************************************************
> > Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
> >            http://www.beethoven.com
> >Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------
>
> "The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
> modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
>
> From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
> minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
> about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> nothing."
>      --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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