Re: [ga] significant user representation

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas do you not believe that is a two-way street? After all these years of
the board and constituencies not listening, not doing anything that
resembles a bottom up consensus nor anything resembling transparency, don't
you think people get a little suspicious of motives and a little frustrated?
Do you think we are frustrated with this whole process for no reason? We
volunteers our time to get involved and the board and others treat this list
like its garbage. How does that encourage others to speak up or get
involved?

There seems to be the attitude from people in specific constituencies that
seem to think because they have certain technical knowledge they should just
be allowed to make the decisions for all of us peons because we just don't
know whats good for us. The condescending attitude from board members and
people from certain constituencis and supporting organizations is what
pisses people off Thomas.

But maybe you haven't noticed all that.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation


> Let me second Chuck's underlying point here. Putting words in people's
> mouths, selectively (mis)quoting them, adding innuendos,
> (mis)speculating underlying motivations, etc., is one reason that the
> signal-to-noise ratio on this list is so low and that people that
> arguably should be posting simply don't bother.
>
> I've been told by many that I'm wasting my time trying to engage this
> list in a constructive dialog, given the normal behavior of a number
> of regular posters. And there are individuals I would like to see
> participating here that won't bother given the debating tactics that
> some use.
>
> You want the board or other interested parties to have a dialog here?
> Then I'd suggest treating people with respect and professionally and
> engaging them honestly with a real goal of searching for consensus,
> and increasing the overall level of shared understanding in this
> space.
>
> Thomas
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I learned years ago not to try to have meaningful dialog with people who
> > make statements like this: "Chuck would argue that if anyone disagrees
> > with him, they must be biased activists, and not representative of the
> > unheard masses. Typical debating tactic used in high school, usually on
> > the losing side."  So you are correct George: no response from me.
>
> > Chuck Gomes
> > VeriSign Information Services
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 6:50 PM
> > > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > --- "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > My interpretation of Chuck's comment to you last week is that he
> > > > implies public comment should come from a publicly appointed
> > > > spokesperson(s) to be valid, otherwise the opinion only represents a
> > > > few so-called activists. His solution of empowering the public via
> > > > more TLD choices is only a solution for a subset of the public
> > > > community and not all registrants. Consumer choice is a perfectly
> > > > acceptable solution in a truly free and competitive market
> > > > environment, but in a single supplier market, it simply
> > > doesn't work.
> > >
> > > Chuck would argue that if anyone disagrees with him, they must be
> > > biased activists, and not representative of the unheard
> > > masses. Typical
> > > debating tactic used in high school, usually on the losing side. CIRA
> > > (.ca) allows every domain owner to register to vote  for its officers.
> > > It would be a very simple exercise for VeriSign to do the
> > > same for .com
> > > (even with a thin WHOIS), 1 vote per domain registrant, in
> > > coordination
> > > with the various registrars. A few hundred thousand dollars of
> > > programming, at most, or one could license the technology from others
> > > (e.g. online shareholder voting, as done by various companies).
> > >
> > > I'll bet a dozen donuts that you won't find a majority of .com
> > > registrants willing to pay for 7% annual increases in registration
> > > costs at the wholesale, or who want presumptive renewal, or
> > > who want to
> > > give VeriSign free use of their traffic data. I doubt those "unheard
> > > masses" are screaming for higher prices. Heck, maybe Karl or others
> > > (not me) could even be elected as representatives of domain holders.
> > >
> > > If you want a sense of what VeriSign likely considers "representative"
> > > opinion, you only need read:
> > >
> > > http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/15/2125118.html
> > > http://texturbation.com/blog/2006/07/14/free2innovate-is-a-pai
> > > d-corporate-pr-blog/
> > > http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/07/15/steven-forrest-outed-as
> > > -bill-hobbs/
> > >
> > > How about a comment, Chuck? Do you consider these kinds of bloggers,
> > > who are supposedly pseudonyms and allegedly on the VeriSign payroll,
> > > posting in support of VeriSign the kind of public input that ICANN
> > > should be considering when making decisions?
> > >
> > > I'd like to see VeriSign at least deny that he was ever on their
> > > payroll, on the public record. Then, if there's ever a lawsuit or
> > > Discovery (or maybe in the current CFIT lawsuit), and it turns out
> > > differently, heads will roll.
> > >
> > > Willing to stick your head out?
> > >
> > > (my guess is Chuck won't respond)
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.kirikos.com/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 9/7/06
>
>