Saturday, July 17, 1999, 7:32:34 PM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always manage to leave something off of lists like these, but here are
> the ones that come to mind, some momnths later.
> By the list owner:
> 1. Enforcement of participation rules, post hoc and without documentation
> or group approval
No participation rules were enforced by fiat. NONE. More Lies (yes
I've taken to calling them what they are, for these individuals KNOW
them to be false, and insist on continuing their charade).
> 2. Assertion of organizational goals which were without documentation and
> without group approval
Again FALSE. More Lies.
> 3. By fiat calling for a couple of ostracism votes against participants
> with whom he disagreed, again without any documentation of procedures about
> ostracism or acceptable/unacceptable participation behavior (and the
> results of those votes were never announced.)
Any member of the IDNO can make a recommendation such as this. In
this particular case, the recommendation did not carry the support of
enough of the IDNO to even be brought to a vote. But you choose to
ignore that.
> 4. By fiat removing a participant who never expressed any desire to be
> removed.
NO ONE was EVER removed by anyone but themselves. NEVER. NOT ONCE.
This is the most blatent lie you have perpetrated.
> As I say, the list is probably longer, but this will no doubt provide
> enough fuel.
> At the least it gives a good indication of a consistent failure to
> comprehend rather basic concepts of due process.
Actually, I think it illustrates the strength of the IDNO. The
members chose NOT to oust anyone, and indeed the IDNO continues to
grow despite the presence of known individuals who are hostile to the
concept of individual representation at an equal level to commercial
and registrar representation.
All you have done is shown that the IDNO is even STRONGER and better
organized.
> Number of voters in the IDNO system, according to one of the notes in this
> thread.
Uh, no, this is again false. The current voter roles are available
and they are quite a bit larger than this, each voting member having
been researched by the membership committee as meeting the eligibility
requirements.
> You seem to have missed the small fact that I was a direct participant at
> the times of these problems, so that there is no need to ask others about
> the behaviors. I witnessed them directly.
And then why do you tell lies about them? The archives are open.
Read them people, don't take this person and Kent's word for it.
Don't even take my word for it (though I am on the membership
committee). Read the archives. Join the list. See that indeed these
are nothing more than blatent lies made knowingly and with intent to
disrupt and discredit.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Kent had submitted a
membership request with his domain name, he would of been on the
approved voters list and could of had a voice in this election. Same
with Kevin Connolly and Dave Crocker, and any other domain name holder
REGARDLESS of their position vis a vis ICANN. There is no "oath
against ICANN" in the IDNO, or rule that CORE supporters are not
welcome.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
