[governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review

[Joe Baptista]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Veni Markovski wrote:

> Joe,
> Actually the people who read this list can make their own
> conclusions. That's why I decided not to give any. And I asked what's
> the solution. Just saying "Oh, that's the problem" doesn't make any
> sense. In this aspect, your mail does not bring to the solution.

Nonsense.  Most of the people here have no means of making an educated
decision on icann simply because they are not educated in icann.  To get
an icann education requires time - i.e. you have to be an icann watcher.

Thats why I call you a word speculator and consider danny younger to be
the educated source in icann matters.  you certainly are not.

>
> As for who spent how much time "around".... Again an empty statement.
> There's no way to calculate time "around".

You see what I mean - you write nonsense and nothing else - hyperbolic
speculation.  There is a way to calculate around.  I.e. when it comes to
icann I was there when it was incorporated.  I was there at the initial
IFWP meetings.  Where you around then.

This is the biggest problem with the internet governance creq - alot of
sel proclaimed jonny come latelies.  Waste of time.

> I've been reading all these e-mails and often I'd stay quiet,
> regardless of the content. Today's acusation by Danny on the ICANN
> staff is not something that I would pass with silence.

Most would and those who know icann and have a mortal soul would also hang
their heads in shame.  Everything danny said is true.  Icann is and always
has been a farce.  Based on your statements I can say with absolute
authority and not so humbly that you are ignorant of icann and it's ways.
However I give you credit - you are well versed in it's fictions - you
simply thing the fiction is fact.

> As for your statements about my motives - another moment of silence,
> as I don't think this list should deal with me, or you, or Danny. It
> deals with real problems, not with ones which once put on the table,
> lead the discussion in the wrong direction, and thus do not bring us
> solutions, but more problems.

Look Veni - the list is a waste of time - much like most of the people who
participate on it.  The WSIS process was a successful event - it
accomplished nothing which is what the powers that be wanted.  It also
kept alot od do gooders busy creating contents and what will be known as
consent.

Waste of time - accomplished nothing.

cheers
joe baptista

>
> veni
>
> At 17:10 17-12-05  -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >you obviously not well versed in the icann process.  danny's
> >interpretation is correct.  danny has been around longer then you and he
> >knows how the processes work in fact - as opposed to fiction which is the
> >icann way.
> >All I see her of your argument is a need to be heard - but nothing in it
> >is factual - only speculative arguments which bear probably excuses.
> >Icann does as icann pleases - those are the fact if you had been paying
> >attention all these years since it's formation.
>
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance