[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

Sun Jun 22 17:06:22 EDT 2008

Dominik, Evan, and all,

  I understood that the context to which you refer Dominik
is one possible meaning.  But not the only one.  Still, my
questions stand as relevant in any context, which is why
I posed them in the manner in which I did.  

  Users can only represent themselves as whom and what they
are in the manner they are most familier with even if that
manner is offensive to other users irrespective of context.
Parsing or attributing context to a particular meaning in
any language can be difficult, often misunderstood, and
frequently malinged improperly.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>
>Sent: Jun 22, 2008 6:53 AM
>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>, alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
>
>Jeff,
>
>Evan's wording is ok. I see it in the context 'what would happen if' in
>connection with other posts on this thread.
>
>Dominik
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:09 AM
>To: Dominik Filipp; alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Cc: NA Discuss
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
>
>Dominik and all,
>
>  I am not sure how the summit organizers could endanger the ALAC or the
>RALO's any worse than they have endangered themselves already.  I am
>also clearly sure the statement on the ALAC review is significantly
>flawed as to user participation and representation on the ICANN Bod as
>it does not reflect the known users desires and reasonable rights via
>the OECD declaration posted earlier, nor accomplish ICANN's mission re
>the MOU. 
>
>Again for OECD declaration see:
>http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf
>Note: I and our members fully support the principals of this declaration
>and believe that it largely can and should apply to ICANN.
>
>  Further I am more than a bit baffled by Evan's meaning by stating
>"improper comments by some individuals".  What "improper comments by
>some individuals" is he referring to, and how could their be such
>statements in the first place, unless he is just stating his own
>personal opinion as if it were gospel or even actually authoritative to
>stakeholder/users everywhere, which obviously such cannot be true?
>Evan, can you clarify please?  Please bare in mind that if you answer
>directly, and regardless of your answer, casting false aspersions upon
>others, however indirectly, is in and of itself often times considered
>"improper" or not "appropriate" in legal parlance.
>And if done so publicly is considered civil defamation.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>
>>Sent: Jun 22, 2008 1:02 AM
>>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
>>
>>Evan,
>>
>>I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the
>>importance of the summit.
>>
>>The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who
>>could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have
>>understood from the remark.
>>
>>To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post
>>
>>"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and
>>board to rethink support for the summit at this time"
>>
>>I am optimistic :-)
>>
>>Dominik
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] 
>>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM
>>To: Dominik Filipp
>>Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss
>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
>>
>>Dominik Filipp wrote:
>>>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could 
>>>> endanger the summit being ok'd
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be
>>punished?
>>> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
>>>   
>>I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here
>are
>>acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO
>>naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit.
>>
>>IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to
>>outsiders (and especially the US government)  that it at least is
>>minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the
>>Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that
>>doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated
>>and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven
>otherwise.
>>
>>- Evan
>>
>>
>>------
>>NA-Discuss mailing list
>>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list
>s.icann.org
>>
>>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>>------
>
Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827