Re: [ga] significant user representation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cris and all,

 Here here!  And thank you again Chris for yet again getting
right directly to the point.  Well done!

kidsearch wrote:

> 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
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827