[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 12:16:39 UTC 2015
This is a complete misreading of my statement and my views in many
different ways. There was nothing personal in it. I have the highest
regard for Ed. That said, I was and remain baffled at the litany of what I
saw (and see) as largely unsupported and far-fetched allegations regarding
the consequences of particular voting rights. Coming at the last second
when they could have been made for months, it seemed to me that this was as
much an attempt to simply de-rail things as it was to make any specific
points. It's good to know that the objections (even if misplaced) were
If this was read in any way as ad hominem and or ad personam I apologize
for that. But that was not my intention. To insinuate that this was
"cyber bullying" is misplaced, and may even do what it states it abhors.
As a matter of fact, there is far more in the way of direct personal
accusations and attacks in this latest response than could possibly be read
into my email. Indeed the second paragraph of the email is nothing but a
personal attack. I questioned only the motive of a single email, not the
general integrity of the writes -- in response I am accused of
cyber-bullying and a "continuing propensity to question the motives and
good faith of others." To pigeonhole me as a "representative of
intellectual property interests" and to contrast that with interests in
making both ICANN and the world a better place is a gross
mischaracterization of my values and viewpoints. I share those concerns
deeply and resent being pigeonholed.
I look forward to future discussions with my esteemed colleague and hope
that they will stick to substance and finding mutual ways forward.
Finally, I bear no grudges in this Working Group (though that has proved
difficult in one case), and particularly not against Ed.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> When considering anyone's intervention one always must try to
> ascertain what the individual wants to achieve, in addition to the
> method(s) used.
> Nothing but tactics.
> Though Americans often think that the "It's nothing personal, just
> business" excuses anything.
> I am quite partial to ad-hominem myself as is well known, and hence
> can rarely complain being on the receiving end :-)-O.
> It's also perfectly acceptable to bear a grudge, and Belzegreg has
> joined the likes of Antonius Lubricius long ago.
> On 2015-07-30 11:53, Edward Morris wrote:
> > In reading Greg's post I can't help but have some regret that I
> > responded negatively to the post of a GAC member a few weeks ago
> > suggesting that ICANN has a role in controlling cyber bullying.
> > I continue to be disturbed by Mr. Shatan's continuing propensity
> > to question the motives and good faith of others. That, as
> > Professor David Weil taught me at Cambridge, this reflects more on
> > the individual making the attack than on that being attacked is
> > small comfort. I recognize that the representative of
> > intellectual property interests might have some difficulty in
> > understanding some may come to this process with no goal other
> > than to contribute to try to make the world a better place,
> > without any economic interest whatsoever. Sad.
> > One may disagree with my views but they are held honestly. As a
> > citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and a long time peace
> > activist, I can not countenance any voting scheme that gives even
> > the slightest potential voting power to the American military.
> > This is an honest belief, not as alleged by Mr. Shatan, part of a
> > scheme to delay things. The US military, via RSSAC, in an
> > advisory role and the U.S. Military, via RSSAC, as an entity with
> > voting rights are two different things. That as an American he
> > may have a different perspective is understandable.
> > I don't play games. As a human rights activist with degrees in
> > the field from several institutions and extensive work experience
> > in the field I am deeply disturbed by any scheme that gives any
> > entity multiple voting rights. I advocate for a fair time frame
> > for minority views not because of any "friends", as Mr. Shatan
> > has alleged, but because of a strong belief in due process and the
> > protection of the rights of those whose views may be outside the
> > mainstream. These are honestly held beliefs and I resent claims
> > by the Chair of the IPC to the contrary. To the Chairs of the
> > CCWG regarding minority reports: please look at the ICM IRP
> > decision imputing to ICANN due process obligations via the
> > international law provision in our bylaws. Consider the
> > Ombudsman's opinion. If you ignore both...well, I hope you don't.
> > I now need to commence my 12 hour work day. Good luck with the
> > calls. I will conclude by noting that the politics of personal
> > attack is a very American thing. We obviously have a long way to
> > go in internationalizing many aspects of ICANN.
> > Ed
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421 \ /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community