[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-DNS name protection
Stephen and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
Stephen Waters wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 21:19, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Waters wrote:
> >
> > > Philosophically speaking, we make judgements based on heuristics. Even
> > > as you've learned that often "diplomacy is often a mask for bullshit",
> > > I've learned that "you attract flies with honey". Let's assume for a
> > > moment that your negative arguments are valid. What makes you think
> > > people are going to pay attention to you if you go on to use
> > > inflammatory language to criticize them in addition to the core
> > > argument?
> >
> > Inflammatory language? Sarcasm and irony perhaps, but
> > inflammatory language? Please. Is someone putting you up
> > to this?
>
> Several of your postings about Joop seemed inflammatory to me. e.g., the
> whole "control" thing:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0207/msg00010.html
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg01178.html
There are no "Inflammatory" terms or language by any standard that I know
if in either of these posts to which you refer, Stephen. Ergo, I think your
level of paranoia is beyond reasonable levels and this, your own set of
examples are testament of such excess.
>
>
> Granted, maybe that's because I agreed with his position that the Panel
> had to be the driving force behind: 1) the passwords, 2) the new
> website, and 3) the new webmaster and they obviously weren't driving
> (c.f., catch 22), but still. (Yes, I'm ignoring the billing thing. No,
> I'm not putting up Joop or anyone else here as a paragon of
> magnanimity).
Here you offer a well structured argument Stephen, but a obviously
flawed and lacking historically one. Hence, yet again, and in part by your
own admission in this (see above) argument displaying a preference
on a personal level all be it a slight one. As such, your argument
is self defeating as to your conclusion.
>
>
> No one's putting me up to anything. I like a lot of what you have to say
> but sometimes your approach stinks.
Fine. Than why do you choose to seek to make such, a personal
deamonization of Sotiris?
> Diplomacy is about approach, of
> course, not the message...
Wrong! Diplomacy is strictly about using many different approaches
as a means for putting forth a message. This therefore does not preclude
any specific approach, rather diplomacy allows for many including the
Bullshit approach, which can be applied with some skill, yet still
understood as such. >;) Try again Stephen...
> but if the diplomacy isn't there, sometimes
> one wonders about the message and/or messenger.
One can take such a view, sure. And unfortunately in doing so,
hampers understanding and impedes conclusions or solutions.
>
>
> > > Argue the point and get on with it. Ad hominem adds nothing.
> > >
> > > I, for one, do not support or elect people based on negative
> > > campaigning.
> >
> > I am not campaigning. I am volunteering when nobody else
> > would. Whether or not you support my efforts as a
> > volunteer is entirely up to you.
>
> "Campaigning" wasn't a good choice... I just meant in terms of you
> volunteering to the Panel to webmaster and perhaps why they mightn't
> choose you.
The Panel is beyond it's mandate to make such a choice. Hence such
a choosing is illegitimate. Making this argument of yours invalid.
>
>
> > > I imagine Panel members of a voluntary organization daily
> > > subject to public criticism in the midst of their personal workload and
> > > familial responsibilities will respond to ad hominem even less.
> >
> > Mr. Gupta was warned (by myself) right after his election
> > that he better get on with the workload this time round as
> > I was going to be watching him closely. Check the
> > archives, my warning to him is there.. He has a history
> > of doing nothing as was clearly evident in the last
> > panel... His continued absence only vindicates my
> > position. Plus, I am not wihtout support on the issue of
> > Mr. Gupta, or hadn't you noticed?
>
> Yeah, I noticed. I didn't vote for him in either election for that very
> reason. Plenty of rhetoric, no solutions. (Before someone accuses this
> mail of doing the same, the whole point of this is to encourage a more
> deliberative, and less acerbic style).
>
> > > I would
> > > certainly be reluctant to hire a person for a job if they flamed me in
> > > public about something beyond my control.
> >
> > Mr. Gupta's absence is not beyond his control.. check the
> > archives, he has a habit of appearing only to make
> > self-righteous statements in defense of his absence and
> > general indolence vis a vis this organization.
>
> Yeah, I wasn't defending him. My point was about whether or not a
> person's life as an individual affects or does not affect her life as a
> worker/volunteer... it was supposed to be hypothetical.
And in being hypothetical and presented as a premise to such
an argument is flawed as a result to solutions.
>
>
> > > I would think to myself "Does
> > > not play well with others. Cannot be trusted to do the job right."
> >
> > Excuse me for saying so, but that is bullshit! The job of
> > webmaster is not a committee waiting to happen, it's a
> > technical job in which capacity one person is more than
> > sufficient. Furthermore, I'm not here to play, I'm here
> > to work. If you base your hiring assessments on
> > therapeutics and sandbox rules that's your business, but
> > in the real world results/actions speak louder than
> > camaraderie.
>
> My point is: Would you post on the site something you vehemently
> disagreed with or would you keep shouting "bullshit" and not do it?
Sotiris already answered this several times now. Hence it is becoming
clearer that you are not paying very good attention to what Sotiris has
been saying all along, but rather skewing it in your own mind...
>
>
> > > While I agree they should excuse themselves or designate a
> > > proxy, unfortunately we're in sort of a Catch-22 here with lacking
> > > procedures, participation guidelines, etc. We need them to do something
> > > but they're in a bind and unable to do what we need, and we have no
> > > procedure yet for overruling that situation.
> >
> > So, you're content with them sitting back and doing
> > nothing? What kind of a position is that?
>
> nah, that was just the outline of the problem set for the bullet points
> below it. I have no solution for pulling a quorum out of a hat. Maybe we
> need a member-level vote of no confidence in these cases of deadlock? I
> dunno.
>
> > > . Does yelling about it do anything at all to solve the Catch-22?
> >
> > I'm criticizing where it's warranted, as is my democratic
> > right. What about you? How are you helping things?
>
> At this moment, I'm helping things by trying to make your criticism more
> effective. You may be annoyed that I just said that sentence but that's
> the honest intent. Whether or not you actually care for my criticism is
> another matter.
>
> > > . Does sending repeated mails to the list regarding Gupta's absence make
> > > him any more likely to show up?
> >
> > Probably not, which only drives my point home. As I
> > already mentioned, I warned him at the beginning of his
> > present tenure that I'd be watching him specifically.
>
> Well, yeah, we know he's gone. :) To me, it seemed like you were
> beating a dead horse saying "see! see!"
>
> But what I didn't see was how that helped the Panel meet their quorum.
It was an indirect message as I read it to replace Gupta ASAP...
>
>
> > > . Does your manner make the Panel more or less likely to think you'd use
> > > the website as a bully pulpit?
> >
> > That's for the Panel to decide, and not for you or me.
>
> But you're volunteering. And maybe wondering why they might or might not
> choose you. Supposing you wouldn't use the website for ill, wouldn't it
> concern you if the Panel thought you would?
Again and obvious reference to far too much paranoia in this instance.
>
>
> > Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, you're entitled to
> > them. Now, do you have anything constructive and/or
> > substantive to add to the common cause of moving this
> > organization
> > forward or not?
>
> I thought it was constructive: In the same way the philosophy degree
> helps my programming. Not the way that the O'reilly book helps it.
>
> AFter I'm done with my degree (May), I hope to spend more time on this
> organization (WG-WEB, WG-DN, etc.). As it is now, I skim the list and
> try to contribute when it seems like I should and when replied to. Sure,
> if you search, I'm sure you'll find I criticize style a lot. But I hate
> to see a good argument ignored because it's drowned in bile.
>
> -s
>
> > > > > However, as an individual that's fine, of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The Slashcode-ish look is ok. You really need to change those <td
> > > > > bgcolor="#ffffff"> backgrounds to delineate between various content
> > > > > spaces, though.
> > > >
> > > > That is not a problem. The site I sent you all to look at is a mock-up of a possible
> > > > layout, not a finished product.
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I prefer CSS to bgcolor declarations (easier
> > > > > on the file downloads, too...) but users of ancient browsers may need
> > > > > this deprecated crutch.
> > > >
> > > > We're trying to be inclusive here Stephen, I've been to public libraries here in
> > > > Toronto that are still running older browsers that do not render CSS correctly. I've
> > > > even left out unecessary graphics for those on slow connections... Anyway, it was an
> > > > example of what can be done, not what must be done. But, has anyone else offered up
> > > > another option?
> > >
> > > No one has, as far as I know. I was just offering constructive
> > > criticism.
> > >
> > > $0.02USD
> > > -s
> > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 17:06, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.worldatlarge.org/index.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hans Klein wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sotiris,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you have a mock-up web site, I am sure we would all be eager to see it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you post the URL?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hans
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 02:15 PM 10/16/2002 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > > > > > >DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jamie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before you begin questioning the relationship between established user
> > > > > > > > > organizations and ICANN, you might want to ask if your own group,
> > > > > > > > without any
> > > > > > > > > organizational documents, without even a mission statement, bylaws or
> > > > > > > > > charter, even qualifies as an organization suitable for recognition as an
> > > > > > > > > at-large structure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Perhaps a dis-organization, then? Especially of late.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Before I received this email from Danny, I was about to post a link to the
> > > > > > > >list
> > > > > > > >directing all of you to a mock-up web site which Hans requested I put together
> > > > > > > >(even though I had ALREADY set up the PHPNuke site for all of you to view a
> > > > > > > >couple months ago! Remember that ladies and gentlemen?!? Check the
> > > > > > > >archives, if
> > > > > > > >you like...). However, having read Danny's email I stopped myself and
> > > > > > > >decided to
> > > > > > > >visit the Panel's closed list archive for a look at how our leaders are going
> > > > > > > >about the business of this "organization". Much to my surprise, I saw a
> > > > > > > >motion
> > > > > > > >from Jamie Love (seconded by Hans Klein) to make Brett Faussett the new
> > > > > > > >webmaster. No offense against Brett, but where's he been for the last couple
> > > > > > > >months? I didn't hear him volunteering his services when a new webmaster was
> > > > > > > >being sought. Or, ( as is probably the case) is this some kind of a
> > > > > > > >compromise
> > > > > > > >selection to placate Joop? In any case, if this is the direction the Panel
> > > > > > > >wishes to take, then I wish them all the power in the world. However, I
> > > > > > > >cannot
> > > > > > > >for a moment understand why the WG-Web members (of which I am one) were not
> > > > > > > >consulted?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As per the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform's Second Interim
> > > > > > > > > Implementation Report: "We agree that individual at large entities should
> > > > > > > > > meet some "accreditation" standard, and we find the criteria and standards
> > > > > > > > > recommended by the Assistance Group to be an attractive list."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This "list" stipulates structured, self-sustaining entities that engage in
> > > > > > > > > outreach and post current information about the organization's aims,
> > > > > > > > > structure, constituents, working mechanisms, and current leadership.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Your aims are not posted
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >To date I submitted TWO different versions of Mission Statements for this
> > > > > > > >organization (both several months ago) which elicited next to no comments, and
> > > > > > > >yet there is still no substantive work produced by the 'power elite' among
> > > > > > > >us on
> > > > > > > >this issue. Shameful. This and the webmaster issue noted above are enough to
> > > > > > > >put off persons (such as myself) who are willing to contribute
> > > > > > > >substantively...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. You have no organizational structure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Oh, but we do... dis-organization.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. You are not self-sustaining
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >If bombast and self-important bluster were the fuel of the day, I'd say we're
> > > > > > > >self-perpetuating rather than self-sustaining.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. You have no established working mechanisms or procedures for the
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > membership
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Why bother, that would detract from the nominal importance of our Panel
> > > > > > > >Members... BTW, Danny, have you perhaps heard anything from that champion
> > > > > > > >of the
> > > > > > > >common netizens, Satyajit Gupta? I wonder if the other Panel Members
> > > > > > > >approve of
> > > > > > > >his delinquency? If not, then why are there no steps being taken to
> > > > > > > >replace him?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5. You can't document any organizational outreach activities
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Well, you might have something there. Perhaps Richard Henderson can fill
> > > > > > > >us in
> > > > > > > >on the progress towards the 100, 000 membership base he promised.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After you get your own house in order, then feel free to question the
> > > > > > > > > relationship of ISOC chapters to ICANN -- they at least meet the minimum
> > > > > > > > > criteria expected for an at-large structure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Except for the fact that they are now a Registry operator, which puts them
> > > > > > > >in the
> > > > > > > >gTLD constituency...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Seriously Disappointed,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Name: signature.asc
> > > > > signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
> > > > > Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Name: signature.asc
> > > signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
> > > Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: signature.asc
> signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
> Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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