RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I reject this reprimand as uncalled for, and inaccurate. The word "jihad" was 
not "broadly directed" it was focused very specifically on the campaign waged 
by a very specific group of people, even to the extent of setting up a web 
site. http://intratldregistryregistrarseparation.org/

If anyone lacks the sense of context and perspective to grasp the humor in the 
use of the word jihad, I apologize to you and feel sympathy for you.

Frankly, I suspect that the reactions to my posts have nothing to do with the 
choice of words and everything to do with substantive disagreements, and 
frustration on the part of certain parties that they are unable to refute or 
answer my arguments. To use your own words, Mikey, this post of yours is "not a 
helpful contribution." Sorry if you're getting behind the scenes pressure to 
shut me up, but you should know by now that it won't work.

--MM

From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 5:23 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

Milton,

a reprimand -- the use of the word "jihad" in this context, and directed so 
broadly, has triggered several responses to the co-chairs.  please note that 
the use of this kind of language can trigger very different reactions in a 
group like this and, it's safe to say, is pretty inflammatory under any 
circumstances.  it's also not a helpful contribution, especially at this late 
stage when the group is already feeling a fair amount of pressure after a very 
long hard effort to find middle ground.  please resist the urge to stir the 
waters this way.

thanks,

mikey


On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:



Milton, so we have you to thank for this :-).

<evil laugh>

My recollection is that the registrars and registries on Council voted against 
the NCSG motion to form a PDP in the first place because there was a sense that 
the VI issue would not be "solved" via a PDP.

I would frame it differently. Many registrars voted against a PDP because a few 
of the more vocal ones thought they had negotiated private deals with staff 
that would give them what they wanted. But none of them knew exactly what staff 
would do ultimately. And none of them were able to demonstrate any consensus 
around a specific solution. And we had a pretty serious jihad from some of the 
registries (what is now the RACK group). While both NCSG and CSG (I think, not 
intending to speak for them) felt that the issues had not been properly aired.

Given all that, I saw no practical alternative to making an honest attempt to 
arrive at an agreed policy through an open process that involves all the 
stakeholder groups in direct discussions and negotiations. Do you?

The idea that we can punt policy making to staff and board has its appeal, I 
know. But a more mature contemplation of its meaning tells us that the whole 
model underlying ICANN is failing if we have to resort to that every time we 
face a difficult issue.


- - - - - - - - -
phone  651-647-6109
fax                        866-280-2356
web      http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)