ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA/Apartheid

  • To: ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA/Apartheid
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:10:21 -0700 (PDT)

Thomas Narten is a very pleasant non confrontational passive aggressivist.  
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ ; He will label people on this list and classify 
people on this list but he uses the concept of "herding cats" to describe what 
he does.  Clearly he does not have the temperament for lively social 
interaction and is quite uncomfortable when others engage in it. He believes 
social contributions are measured in numbers.
Do not be offended by his belittling of human rights or voting rights or 
representation issues because these are not areas he thinks should be discussed 
in public unless in his class where he chooses participants. The concept that 
someone should prove their  right to be included in governance is not meant as 
an insult to those asking for rights. We are mere cats that need to be herded 
into conformity.(Yes I know this is a concept most closely associated with 
*I do not mean this in a terrible nasty insidious manner. I only refer to it 
along the lines of gerrymandering for representation control as Narten 
suggests. http://www.africanaencyclopedia.com/apartheid/apartheid.html

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA
To: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 8:18 PM

On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> At this point, IMO, the burden of proof resides on those wanting to
> self-organize.  This can be done via a private list unaffiliated with
> ICANN. I don't think ICANN should be seen as blessing such an effort
> because having the list hosted by ICANN would appear to give it a
> stature that it in fact does not have, i.e., would in effect continue
> the current situation we already have.
> Thomas

"Burden of proof"

I seem to recall the IDNO proved our burden 10 years ago, and got shafted by 
Esther and her pals.

What makes you think we want to go through the same shenanigans again when 
we'll just get a "no" at the end?

It'll be a cold day in hell before Registrants get a vote.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>