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

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

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