<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Strikes me that this conversation of fixing the broken - on both
sides - is the waste of time we have been seeking to avoid. While
the list is way too packed with conspiracy theory, presumption
presented as fact, over generalizations and impractical arguments,
for my taste, and despite resulting in less marginal utility, the
comments are not irrelevant to the conversation. This list has
never been limited to the narrower issues that might be relevant to
Brazil. Early on we had a person suggesting salary information and
all sorts of personal invective and non-sense. To me that was a
troll. What we have now is perhaps much less than optimal in
productivity, but not out of bounds with a broad view of the list's
topical relevance. A positive reminder for people to keep to thread
topics or start new topics and perhaps a request for greater care
and delineation between opinion and demonstrated fact could be more
helpful. At the maximum, I think we could suggest that some threads
are not topical to this list and ask that they be pursued
elsewhere. It would also be useful for posters not to presuppose
that they speak on behalf of the unseen majority, unless there is
some demonstration that they have an actual representative
capacity. One may otherwise opine <i>beliefs that most people
might think that</i>... as a more accurate phrasing.<br>
<br>
Short hand: a vote for enhanced civility, productivity and
fact-based argument on all sides. Absent those, the list will
become irrelevant on its own with no need for exclusions.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/15/2014 9:20 PM, Jefsey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:201404160120.s3G1KobS019828@userp1020.oracle.com"
type="cite">At 02:27 16/04/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I agree. The Steering Committee has
agreed to put into effect certain processes to deal with this,
modeled after IETF procedures for dealing with the same
behavior. We should see a proposal, and then hopefully
something being put into practice very soon.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Great!
<br>
<br>
This implies the clarification on the ICANN/NTIA position
regarding their conception of what is an enhanced cooperation, in
particular with the multitude's stakeholders.
<br>
<br>
I am back from my evening working meeting on VGNs. People were
quite pleased with the "troll" mails: every of us wait for this,
now annouced, clarification. It was made urgent by the today's
parallel "so many of your statements here are false or twisted in
your assumed implications that it hurts" rude words of a former
ICANN VP to Carlos A. Afonso, the civil society artesan of the
NETmundial, for his gallant presentation of the user's genuine
vision of the status of the I*leaders' RFC 6852 internet.
<br>
<br>
The Steering Committee position will be a test for the NTIA. It
will help us to know far better what the olicannopole's MSism and
globalization can be, just in time before the Sao Paulo meeting. I
obviously hope that VGN Masters, IUsers of the Multitude and
end-users (on a non pay-vote basis) will be able to cooperate with
the new ICANN toward an architectural innovative revamp of the
global catenet under a neutral internet reviewed, consolidated,
and extended trustable technology.
<br>
<br>
jfc
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>