Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Jeff wrote
> > [The list-owner] is completely within his rights and responsibilities
> > to ask anyone to unsubscribe that is not meeting those behavior rules
> > and requirements. It would however be in the IDNO's best interest to
> > outline those rules and requirements for the IDNO mailing list clearly
> > and concisely.
>
> and
> > ... it may be necessary to in some way
> > denote to the list by it's moderator to occasionally remind other list
> > participants in an "Announcement Form" of some sort, of these
> > individuals list behavioral shortcomings so as to put their posts in
> > the perspective that they more than likely belong.
>
> So the question of technical versus governmental matters boils
> down to the question of how to run a mailing list! I can't say I'm
> surprised, except by the incomprehension of participants that the
> issue is a "standing question" and always before the house. In 20
> years, havent we learned anything about CMC?
Please understand I am NOT advocating any particular form of action
or direction in my comments (See above) as I did preface them with the
term "MAY".
>
>
> Certainly a list-owner can be an autarch, and do what he likes;
> that's been The Rule for most of that time (but then, why object to
> ICANN as autarch for the entire Internet 'list'?)
Why object you say? Well I think it painfully evident that the ICANN
Interim (or is that initial now?) Board seems to be dictating a specific
direction, not soliciting a democratic process to determine a direction.
In as much as the IDNO mailing list and the IDNO itself is concerned
at least Joop is suggesting a democratic approach to determining a
direction. This stands well for the IDNO, and Joop in particular in
comparison to the ICANN (initial?) Interim Board.
> But, over the years,
> many lists like Joop's have declared themselves to be 'democratic'
> or 'consensual' or 'open' -- but then, when a problem occurs with
> subscribers who dont feel bound by the process, retreat to 'rules
> and requirements.'
This predominantly, IMHO, because there has never been a method
employed to determine whether there is truly a "Consensus" or not.
With Joops "Voting application" as a tool, the IDNO has such a method
that can be used for this purpose. This gives individuals a VOICE that
matters.
> Is the perogative of *defining the rules Joop's
> alone - or does the group get to share? (Oh, only the *real
> democrats?) One may depersonalize the role into a *rule, but that
> is not (and never has been) enough to transform autarchy into
> some kinder and gentler form of governance; it only wraps a layer
> of velvet around it.
Very true indeed, I agree. However in the case with the IDNO this
does not necessarily need to occur as Joop and the IDNO mailing list
has a tool (See above) by which they can adequately determine if
any rules need to be put into place, and how they are to be administered
or otherwise enforced.
>
>
> I'm quite sure that Joop is a wise and considerate ruler; and I'm
> sure that the good people on the Interim Board are doing the best
> they can, too. But if 'open source' society is what one aspires to,
> regulating the wazoo out of the organization is no more in the
> IDNO's "best interest" than it is in ICANNs. Rather, one must come
> to terms with the reality of the Net: *there is always someone to
> represent every position*. Democracy is not a matter of reading
> Announcement Forms as to who is In and who is Out, it's *getting
> along* with people who disagree.
Good point and one that I have been advocating for many years.
>
>
> The better interests of IDNO therefore will be served by a collective
> membership which *appreciates the opportunity which nay-sayers
> and iconoclasts provide, and which understands (as Tony said the
> other day) that "there are multiple different potential outcomes that
> evolve with time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative answers --
> just directions."
Agreed completely.
>
>
> What then is an open list to do? How does one 'get along'? In a
> word, dialogue. It's slow and painful, I admit, but it is possible to
> take up one point at a time ("stay on topic"), until the *grounds of
> disagreement have been clarified. At that point, one chooses which
> ground one stands on, or, collectively, each one votes on the
> ground to be held by the group.
Exactly right, and this was part of my point on this thread in my
previous post. It is also a lesson that the ICANN (initial?) Interim
Board seems steadfast against as Mike Roberts has made clear
publicly on more than on occasion.
>
>
> I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does not start
> with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
> bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
> agree.
Agreed, one must look at the relevant facts in evidence past and
present and than make a determination. Once that determination is
made on an individual basis, than one should have the opportunity
to VOTE. This in the US constitution is the meaning of "We hold these
truths to be self evident"...
> Any subscriber (or member) who gets their cart before the
> horse in this 'top-down' fashion can (by The Rule, remember?) be
> summarily dismissed -- but with a little practice, a sense of
> *tolerance develops, the need for Ruling will rarely arise, and the
> outcome will be better all around because it *maximizes the
> directions one can go*. Isn't that what we wish for ICANN, for the
> SOs, and for our own lives?
And this is exactly what I am advocating Kerry. I believe that you
misinterpreted my previous post on this thread...
>
>
> kerry
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
