Re: [ga] Increased foreign attendance

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- veni markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 12:02 6/28/2007  -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> Two ways to respond to this:
> 
> a) Do you think that the only contribution is to be negative about
> something?

Sometimes, being opposed to something is the only alternative. e.g.
VeriSign wants SiteFinder. My solution is to shut them down, and to get
back the money. Your solution was to rewrite the .com contract to give
them 7% price increases, and weaken the ability to replace them. 

> Ah, and btw, as a native-English speaker, please, let us know what 
> would be the opposite of cheerleader? I guess that word would 
> describe you, so, please, be careful :-)

I'm the enemy of incompetence, as opposed to being a cheerleader. That
makes me the enemy of most ICANN staffers. :) The way to deal with
incompetence is to ensure they have little opportunity to demonstrate
their incompetence, e.g. by opposing bad contracts, ridiculous
spending, opposing attempts to broaden their responsibilities, etc. If
most ICANN staffers were locked in a room and given some Rubik's cubes
to play with for the next 5 years, no one would notice. 
 
> second, not the opposite. As for the votes on the Board - when people
> start to accept that a vote is a vote, and then people should move 
> on, instead of going over and over in history, again, and again... 
> then, perhaps, the time spent on this mailing list, will be more 
> fruitful. So far all I see is history, history, history... And 
> negativism, negativism, negativism.

When you begin to accept responsibility for those mistakes of the past,
and move to rectify them, then perhaps folks will stop reminding ICANN
of them. Everytime ICANN does something new, they need to be reminded
of the past mistakes. They should think to themselves "we've screwed up
so many times in the past, have we really considered all the
implications of this new thing, are we sure we're doing it right and
not screwing things up again?" See section above about incompetence.

> >For someone who only a few posts ago scolded "old timers" it is
> ironic
> >you would use the phrase "I have been on the internet long
> >enough......" Expecting logical consistency from you within a matter
> of
> >hours, though, isn't something I would expect. I know better.
> 
> Oh, I am sure you know better. For example "being on the internet 
> long enough" (in 3 months will turn 17 years) is not equal to "being 
> on this list for 7 years". Of course, when you say what you say 
> above, you just show that there's a misunderstanding. However, and 
> this is the key point - instead of asking when there's something 
> unclear, you assume you know the answer. Therefore the discussion is 
> over before it has begun - you already have an opinion (you know 
> better, right?)

You still don't get it. When you wrote "I have been on the internet
long enough...." in debating parlance you were appealing to your
"longevity" as some sort of strength. However, in the prior scolding of
the "old timers", you were dismissing those "old timers," dismissing
that same item that you later appealed to in your argument. The
misunderstanding is to expect logical consistency within 2 hours from
your posts. 

> >I'll be remembered in a positive light for my contributions.
> 
> I am not interested in engaging in a discussion about you, 
> personally. We were talking about contributions to the ICANN process.

Of course not, because that would defeat your argument that those
so-called "negative" people, that you label, can't do good work,
despite YOUR labels. If folks like me can be effective, then perhaps
those other so-called "negative" people, as you label them, might
actually get things accomplished, despite your words.
 
> for the answer, you already have an opinion? You know, the Internet -
> for a huuuuuuge majority of the people - does not start with the 
> domain names, and esp. with the ".com, .net, .biz, etc", and does not
> end with the IP addresses, as many of the North/West people believe -
> that is, if I judge by the amount of time spent on writing about 
> these issues, but nothing about legal framework encouraging Internet 
> development, or e-commerce, or affordability of the access, or - in 
> many cases - the access itself. As for the domain names - somehow 
> the  Germans have registered much more - percentage wise - ".de" 
> domains, than the rest of the world - ".com", but it seems some 
> people tend to not notice that, and don't make any conclusions out of
> it.

ICANN's mission is domain names and IP addresses. For one to go outside
that mandate shows mission creep at its worst. The above paragraph
should be saved by anyone who wants an example of what ICANN should NOT
be getting into.
 
> >Spending money wisely? Not in ICANN's mission.
> 
> You are indeed a special expert - every time you ask a question, you 
> have the answer. Why bother at all writing the questions, then :)

To demonstrate that my donated expert advice is more precious than the
paid advice received by some so-called "experts" on the ICANN pork
barrel. :)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/