>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20 18:14:56 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.bayarea.net [205.219.84.13])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E82F00A
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from dave-vaio (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106])
> by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA55122;
> Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
> (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.56 (Beta)
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:08:34 -0700
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Kent Crispin applies for IDNO
> membership
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In-Reply-To: <002701bed2ca$642bc750$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Roeland,
>
>Great note. Extremely instructive:
>
>At 09:10 AM 7/20/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>comes as somewhat of a surprise. I hope that you are sincere.
>
>Please forgive me for pointing out than this sort of statement, coming from
>an office holder and decision maker of the organization, is extremely
>prejudicial and reflects an up-front lack of impartiality.
>
>Unless, of course, you present a similar challenge to all applicants. Do you?
>
>> > > requirements, in an open and transparent fashion. Unlike the ICANN
>> > > and the DNSO, we don't consider the position they are likely to take
>> > > with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions.
>> >
>> > Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>>
>>For the interest of fairness, I will ignore this bit of rudeness, on
>
>That is appropriate, since you seem not only to ignore, but to entirely
>miss, the bit of rudeness to which he was responding.
>
>> > >> No, I don't agree to that offensive loyalty oath. I
>> > simply ignored it.
>>
>>William and Kent, the IDNO does NOT have a loyalty oath. I wish you
>>would both quit refering to that clause as such. it simply explicates
>
>Yes, it is always painful to have someone characterize things in a way
>different than one intended, isn't it?
>
>>the charter and mission statement as the reason for joining the IDNO No
>>organization tolerates members actively working against itself. Those
>
>Active effort against an organization is different from requiring formal
>statement of agreement, ie, a loyalty oath.
>
>>Nor does the IDNO. BTW, in your job, you have taken a loyalty oath. As a
>>US citzen, you have taken the "pledge of allegiance", yet another
>
>Actually, no, a native-born American has no requirement for such an oath,
>absent that taking one of a small set of special jobs.
>
>In any event, IDNO is not on that scale of governance and it is just this
>sort of escalation that makes people afraid that ICANN is forcing things
>towards governance.
>
>>loyalty oath. Please don't bore us with tripe about how loyalty oaths
>
>Roeland, as an officer of this organization you need to watch your mouth.
>
>Indulgence in this sort of rude and offensive and dismissive language is a
>very good reason for doubting the legitimacy of IDNO.
>
>Lack of professionalism is particularly less tolerable from an official,
>than from other participants.
>
>> > > This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over
>> > constituency self organization.
>> > I don't think so.
>>
>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>Well, the question is very much appearing to be whether he IS entitled to
>his opinion, or whether you are going to penalize him (more than you
>already have) for holding and expressing it.
>
>>BTW, I take my position very seriously, including dealing with folks
>>that I may personally dislike, in as fair and objective a manner as
>>possible. Kent, you have been known to stretch such tolerance to the
>>extreme, I recognize that. However, this is exactly why we have so many
>
>And, Roeland, for a second time you are here demonstrating an extreme bias
>in your position, since you seem unable to appreciate the importance of
>refraining from undermining participants with ad hominems.
>
>For the rest of you who are serious about IDNO being taken seriously, I
>suggest you consider carefully the burdens that fall onto the shoulders of
>your office-holders.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
