[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Barbara Simons]

I support the comments made by Hans and Kathy Kleiman.
In my experience people are far more likely to speak up
when they are unhappy with something than when they
are in agreement.

Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that the NCC is
by far the most open of the constituencies.  We need to
nurture that openness.  The best way I can think of doing
so would be to develop a set of policies on net etiquette
whereby personal attacks and general nastiness would
be considered a violation of constituency rules and grounds
for exclusion from the list.

Respectfully expressed disagreement and debate are
appropriate - insults and personal attacks are not.
I hope that we can support the former and reduce or
eliminate the later.

Regards,
Barbara

hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu wrote:

> George,
>
> I find this a surprisingly pessimistic assessment.  I think Milton works
> ceaselessly on NCC business and generally does a very good job of it.  I
> also think hard work and commitment are an essential aspect of a successful
> coalition.
>
> I also disagree with the assessment that this constituency lacks
> legitimacy.  I am pretty impressed by the quality of due process exhibited
> here.
>
> My relative silence on this list can definitely be interpreted as assent!
>
> Hans
>
> At 08:53 PM 10/25/2001 -0400, George Sadowsky 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss