Re: [ga] significant user representation

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Alright Mr. Narten,
   
  I call your bluff. If you get five new people to contribute to this list three times each, I will stop writing here for a month. I am certainly one of a hand full of regular critical posters. 
   
  Your sociological observation here is untrue over the last 5 years of this list. In fact time and time again the higher the rancor the higher the amount of and quality of participation. 
   
  There is another unwritten rule here; don't make false assumptions. Read the record or ask anyone who has been here as long as i.
   
  e

Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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" 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." 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/
> > 
> > 


 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.