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

["Brian Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

 

This is really sad.  First as one of the organizers of the web site in
question, along with PIR and Neustar, I take no personal offence to Milton's
use of the word "jihad."  I would only note that the word jihad means either
a "holy war"  (overly used and a sometimes incorrect interpretation by
non-Muslims) or an "internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward
self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort."  It's safe to
say that our collective efforts to vigorously advocate for a policy solution
within the ICANN process doesn't square with the meanings of the word.

 

For the record, I did not respond to the co-chairs concerning your post and
I don't see anybody trying to "shut anybody up" on this working group.  It
has been an open process throughout.   I am the last person who would
advocate political correctness when it comes to speech but if some people on
the working group took offence, that is their right - not their lack of a
sense of humor.  

 

Brian

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:20 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

 

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.)