[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

Sat Oct 27 00:05:24 CEST 2001

Anupam, George, Dave and all

Thank to all of you for your ideas.  I really would like to hear more inputs from
more members of the NCDNHC.

As Anupam stated, I want to propose my own resolution:

1.  The NCDNHC might finish the work initiated in the subject of .ORG and vote on
such document statement by statement
     in order to develop a final and official position in behalf of the NCDNHC.

2.  The NCDNHC might also run a vote, statement by statement, of the document sent
for public comments by the .ORG Task
     Force instead voting in the document as a whole since it would limit the
scope of NCDNHC input regarding such document.

3.  The NCDNHC might also prepares its own statement regarding such items or
statements that were voted "NO" by majority and
     propose futher proposals in how such item and/or statement should be
implemented.

Best Regards
Vany

Anupam wrote:

> My hope is that people all over the world who lurk or seldom participate in
> this list will chime in.  It's impossible to know everything that is being
> discussed at all times.  Very few of us have the time that the few prolific
> list members have in following every issue very closely.  That does not mean
> that we should decline to participate.  That does not mean that we have
> nothing to contribute.  In fact, I suspect many people understand the real
> issues quite well.  The occasional references to RFCs and such should not
> receive blind deference.
>
> Ask questions.  Talk about values.  Complain about a resolution that you
> think doesn't get it right.  More importantly, propose your own resolutions.
>
> Do not let a few people control the agenda and speak on your behalf.
>
> Anupam
> Davis, California
>
> on 10/25/01 4:53 PM, George Sadowsky at George.Sadowsky at attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > Milton,
> >
> > I believe that there are a significant number of lurkers on this list
> > who generally say little, if anything at all.  That's why this
> > electronic conversation looks like a small group discussion from the
> > outside, with the same few people participating.
> >
> > I think you may mistake silence for acquiescence.  That's often a
> > convenient thing to do if it's your point of view that you assume is
> > being acquiesced to.
> >
> > Silence can also be observed on the part of the 99.99% of
> > not-for-profit organizations, potential members of the constituency,
> > who either do not know about this list or consider it not worth their
> > attention.  It's an incredible stretch from the very beginning to
> > assert that NCDNHC has any legitimate standing whatsoever with
> > respect to this constituency.  I am sure that the ICANN Board is
> > quite aware of this; do you think about this from time to time?
> >
> > I do not represent any member of NCDNHC, although I enrolled my
> > former employer, New York University, several years ago before really
> > understanding what the potential output of this group could be.
> >
> > As a lurker, my own silence has meant an unwillingness to get
> > involved in discussions that I thought were relatively meaningless, a
> > defensive kind of silence, to be aware if this group was going to do
> > any significant harm to anything I valued.  My few interventions left
> > me with the feeling that I was not adding anything in the way of
> > progress, and I was better off as a lurker.
> >
> > What I observe recently is a disregard for dealing with dissent in a
> > manner that forms coalitions of people working for a common
> > objective, a disdainful attitude that dismisses disagreement, and an
> > almost pompous assurance that one is right, no matter what the
> > opposing opinions.
> >
> > Some of this is due to the imperfect nature of lists for holding
> > group discussions.  Some of it is due to personalities.  Not enough
> > of it is due to the nature of issues.
> >
> > I will be at ICANN in Los Angeles, and I look forward to observing
> > how you all interact in face to face discussions, that is, if the
> > group will let me join their meeting.
> >
> > George Sadowsky
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > At 5:09 PM -0700 10/25/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> At 03:45 PM 10/25/2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> Anupam:
> >>> I am surprised that anyone is falling for Vany's call for a "special" vote.
> >>
> >> Milton, your respect for opinions and positions that differ from
> >> yours remains a hallmark.
> >>
> >>> There is a formal resolution on ORG submitted. It will be discussed
> >>> and debated
> >>> in the ICANN meeting (where it can be amended and compromises worked out
> >>> more easily) and then submitted to the entire membership online, where
> >>> it can be discussed and amended again, or voted down, if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> We have established procedures for doing these things.
> >>
> >> You seem to misunderstand the procedures, Milton.
> >>
> >> There is nothing in them that mandates having a first vote only at a
> >> face to face meeting.
> >>
> >> There is nothing that mandates having no discussion until a face to
> >> face meeting.
> >>
> >>> last two years is that people who can make
> >>> a lot of noise on an email list may have very
> >>> little support from the membership as a whole.
> >>
> >> Indeed.  So why is it, Milton, that you persist in making so much
> >> noise on this email list?
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> >> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany at sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa