[discuss] surveillance governance,, etc.

[joseph alhadeff]

While I understand why proponents of different positions might like to 
get into miniscule details of point/counterpoint, this is essentially 
bilateral bickering in front of the audience.  Why not take this off 
list between the concerned parties?  The ad nauseum repetition of the 
same arguments (saying it over and over again does not help...) and 
subsequent issues related to personal characterizations is serving as a 
significant disincentive to continued participation in this list.  I 
think if we stick to facts as opposed to conclusions and hyperbole we 
would all be better served.  The level of mail has dramatically 
increased again defeating the attempts to make the list more useful and 
manageable.

My comment is not directed at any one person  and it is unfortunately 
broadly applicable on both sides of these issues.

Joe


On 3/22/2014 11:54 AM, Jefsey wrote:
> At 13:28 22/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>> Why am I involved in this thread?
>
> Because you disregarded Michel Gauthier's reminder about IAB RFC 3869.
>
>> I've not commented at all since the subject line was changed and we 
>> went down this particular rathole.
>> Leave me out of this nonsense please!
>
> I understand that this rathole and nonsense is the world peace. IMHO, 
> you might be unfamiliar with press. Your kind of comments (this is 
> your right), damages the image of the Dubai minority.
>
>> So far, you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing 
>> strategy", you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in 
>> support of the other MGs snide insinuations.
>
> This strategy is plainly, publicly, and authoritatevely documented as 
> such. In case you are not aware:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions 
>
>
> Your comments on DNS-ORC and CAIDA (Michel Gauthier could have 
> extended to W3C) show that you have not read the Farewell address I 
> quoted. I really advise you to do it. There are good answers there to 
> *every* "principle" (as Fadi would say) question discusssed on this 
> list. Astonishing and refreshing, as it is a good, strong and 
> determined US position set that for once everyone can most probably 
> consensually adopt. And start from there.
>
>> My question to you still stands.
>> How would you like the IETF to be funded??
>
> If you ask this to a journalist he will only report you do not any 
> response yourself.
>
> BTW, if you do not know, why don't you ask the IAB? And then decide if 
> you can accept the corresponding constraints.
> jfc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss