Re: [ga] Fwd: Re: netiquette

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually thanks for listening to the rant Veni. Sorry if it seems harsh, but
getting frustrated trying to make constructive comments and offering
solutions to the many tasks that ICANN has to do, then seeing the board turn
a blind eye to not just mine but everyone's suggestions, electing to do it
their own way no matter what the community thinks.

I meant it, thanks for at least coming and commenting on the list.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Veni
Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Re: netiquette


> At 03:25 PM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0400, kidsearch wrote:
> >Typical. Whatever anyone types, it proves your point. it doesn't seem to
> >matter what they type. Everything just verifies anything you had to say.
> >Wow, that must be convenient.
>
> Well, so convinient for you was the fact that I didn't change the
> subject in time - for which I am sorry, and take the whole responsibility.
>
> As for the rest of your mail - I guess you don't expect pro-forma
> answers, which I could have easily typed. Your questions are serious,
> and they require seriuos discussion. And there are many more people
> who can comment even much better than me on them. I've spent enough
> time today on ICANN-related non-paid work, so now I have to go back
> to my tasks, which are waiting my attention.
>
> Best,
> Veni
>
> >Yes you changed the subject and I failed to see that. However, I added no
> >emails to the headers. I hit reply to all, so if anyone did add them
please
> >say who did.
> >
> >You think I am just being contentious. I am trying to let you know that
> >people want major changes in the way ICANN makes policy decisions. For
some
> >reason you don't agree it seems.
> >
> >So may I ask you the following questions, not representing ICANN or
anyone
> >else. Representing your opinion.
> >
> >1. What does bottom-up consensus mean to you?
> >
> >2. Do you believe ICANN has used this process of bottom up consensus to
> >reach decision thus far?
> >
> >3. If yes to the above can you cite examples?
> >
> >4. Do you believe that eliminating the GA was a step forward for ICANN in
> >reaqching a bottom up consensus on decisions?
> >
> >5. Do you believe the GNSO currently represents user interests?
> >
> >6. If yes to the above, then why are individuals not allowed to join?
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
> >To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:06 PM
> >Subject: [ga] Fwd: Re: netiquette
> >
> >
> > > btw, here's a good example of how some of the people prefer to work
here.
> > > Let's examine the message below.
> > >
> > > First, note that I've changed the subject. Second, note that suddenly
> > > there's a new CC: - the icann-board. Third - see that the discussion
> > > is that I have not changed the subject.
> > >
> > > And of course, the "insinuation, falsificatoins and manipulations"
> > > (to use an old cliche, very suitable in this case) that no ICANN
> > > Board member has ever admit they are wrong....
> > >
> > > I think this is enough to prove my being correct in what I wrote
earlier
> >today.
> > >
> > > Karl, we can continue our conversation off-list.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Veni
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > >         "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >Subject: Re: netiquette
> > > >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:22:15 -0400
> > > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
> > > >
> > > >Never said it didn't matter so don't assume what matters to me Veni.
You
> > > >were preaching netiquette and talking about others posting off topic
yet
> >you
> > > >are posting offtopic and not practicing netiquette by creating a new
> >thread
> > > >so as not to distract from the topic of this one.
> > > >
> > > >But then for any ICANN board member to admit they are wrong on even
the
> > > >smallest point is totally impossible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Jeff Williams"
> > > ><jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Veni Markovski"
> > > ><veni@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:29 PM
> > > >Subject: netiquette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > At 11:47 AM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0400, kidsearch wrote:
> > > > > >Veni said "let's try to stay focus on the problem with Danny
using
> > > > > >private e-mails in public communications."
> > > > > >Yes, that is a much more important issue than ICANN
> > > > >
> > > > > ... etc.
> > > > > It may not be more important, but for sure when someone is misuing
> > > > > private e-mails, and does it more than once, I don't think a
normal
> > > > > user should stay quiet and watch peacefully.
> > > > > For you it probably doesn't matter - if someone's words are being
> > > > > used in an area where he or she does not have access. For me it
> >matters.
> > > > >
> > > > > veni
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date:
8/2/06
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 8/2/06
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 8/2/06
>
>