Re: [ga] Increased foreign attendance

[veni markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

At 14:26 6/28/2007  -0700, George Kirikos wrote:

> I'm the enemy of incompetence, as opposed to being a cheerleader. That
> makes me the enemy of most ICANN staffers. :)

I don't mind if you call me incompetent - I don't care. But I 
disagree with your statement - and I believe I've said that some time 
ago, may be more than one year, and think it's quite unfair, and 
unjustified to state something like that.
Plus, the usual personal attacks (or personel attacks in this case) 
only show that you are missing the bigger point - and again instead 
of trying to build something, you start with the demolition. I've 
lived through that, you can't make me believe this is good. I wish 
sometimes people like "you" have lived through that, too.

> 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.

Thanks for writing this. It's good you are so certain in your 
opinion. Sometime such opinions give quite a good understanding of 
your other writings.

> 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.

Nope, you have misunderstand me. I was not appealing as some sort of 
strength. Rather - of understanding for what "you" write.

> 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

Here's a little difference. What I see is not "being effective" but 
being "spectacular" or "glamorous". There's a slight difference, 
unfortunately the English is not good enough to translate it 
correctly, so I've used the closest terms.
I don't put labels on you. I just say that "you" (someone from "you" 
wrote "us") could contribute or not - it's your choice, and you've 
made it, and you carry it from then on. And the fact that "you" 
continue to live in the past is good enough for people to reach to 
their conclusions.

> > 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.

Correct about the mission, although of course you need to phrase it 
better. And I don't see anywhere else in my text the word ICANN. 
Interestingly enough, you still saw it somewhere...

veni