[At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
apisan at unam.mx
Sat Apr 9 06:09:58 UTC 2016
there is no problematique, though we may disagree on how to name a set of raggedly founded hypotheticals.
I am not resorting to desperate tactics, I am politely calling on you to realize the steam has run off this exchange and kindly leave some space for other issues and participants. I am sorry to see once again the resource to victimization on your part. I have left maybe a dozen lists because of your abuse. There are a couple left - including this one - which we need to keep functional. Please help.
Also please respond to my polite and pragmatic suggestions to convert the hypotheticals into testable propositions. You may find more collaboration from busy people that way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Enviado el: sábado, 09 de abril de 2016 00:11
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Seth M Reiss; 'McTim'
CC: 'At-Large Worldwide'
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
On Saturday 09 April 2016 10:20 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
pragmatic people with work to do, networks to operate, businesses to run, civil society to represent, and so on, tend to consider it positive enough that the situation is evolving and wait - or work - to see conditions improve.
Basically you are saying that you do not have an answer to the problematique that I have posed - which incidentally goes to the heart of ICANN's main public function.
As for what I do, my organisation<http://www.itforchange.net/> does not have to prove to anyone either about the substantiveness or the diversity (or the impact) of our work.
As for the rest of your email, I simply take it to be a very offensive effort to censor my participation here, just because I raise issues that are uncomfortable to you. I am very sorry you are restoring to such desperate tactics. I do not know if there is an official minder of this elist or not, but if there is one I would request her/ him to take notice, and give verdict on this unfortunate interdiction.
As in other cases I have a testable proposition for you: you could build a platform based only on this concern and run for a position in an upcoming election to see whether and how much it may matter to others, esp. in comparison with the many other things they have to care for.
Meanwhile, it is of the utmost importance to keep discussion lists open to all participations and that seems to be getting lost as this thread continues, so in the name of civility and democracy some parts of this thread may have to come to an end.
Would an uttering of "quousque tandem [...] abutere patientia nostra" be an inappropriate extraterritorial request?
<very long message tail snipped>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large