Re: [ga] Fwd: Re: netiquette

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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
>
>