[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [names] Re: Discussions on lists

At 10:28 AM 10/10/99 , Joe Sims wrote:

>Jon, I certainly agree with everything in your post below, and do not
>believe that anything I have posted is inconsistent with it.  It is mildly
>amusing but also frustrating to me that Jay and some others feel perfectly
>free to attack ICANN, its Board, its staff, its lawyers and its supporters
>as being illegitimate (to use one of the nicer adjectives) and as part of
>some military-industrial cabal, to denigrate their motives and their
>honesty, and to reject anything they say as simply malicious expediency,
>and then when one of those responds, to cry out that it is a personal

Hi Joe,

Over the course of the last several months, I have indeed
made some serious allegations that you and the ICANN board
have violated the terms of the White Paper, the MoU between
Commerce and ICANN, and your own by-laws.

Instead of addressing our concerns, we have been dismissed as
"outliers" and "arrogant juveniles".  And while you may find
this mildly amusing, your critics do not.

Frankly, we aren't asking for *that* much.  All we want is an
ICANN that follows its mandate as outlined in the White Paper:
"We are looking for a globally and functionally representative
organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent
processes that protect against capture by self-interested factions,
and that provides robust, professional management. The new
entity's processes need to be fair, open, and pro-competitive.
And the new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to
reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders."

>This, I submit, is obvious nonsense, as are many of the positions
>that Jay and some others espouse.  If they don't want to hear this
>reaction, I suggest they stop posting this drivel, stop fighting last
>year's battles, and start engaging in substantive debate.

Last year's battles *are* substantive, and an
important part of this debate.

You and the "interim" board have made significant
and far reaching decisions in direct violation of
your founding documents.  You have also supported
a process that has resulted in a gerrymandered,
gamed and captured DNSO.

The likely result of these actions is a world
government built on a bed of quicksand.

>This is not
>likely to happen, since zealots of any kind are not known for their ability
>to engage in reasoned discourse, and thus your effort to encourage this
>kind of interchange on this list was probably doomed from the beginning by
>the inclusion of people like Jay, who refuse to recognize that there are
>two sides to every argument, including the ones he makes.

I am more than happy to accept any decisions
that result from a fair process as described
in the White Paper.  The fact that I support
the White Paper, and the Green Paper before
it, prove your allegations wrong.

>As a result,
>while I tried to start a discussion on the merits with my initial posting,
>all that has resulted from my participation is more of the same waste of
>time that has characterized every effort to engage with these folks.

The only waste of time has been your refusal
to address your critics in a legitimate fashion.
Until you do, ICANN will gain no trust, resulting
in its ultimate demise.


>guess I will go back to productive work.  Good luck, and my condolences to
>your students, who have been denied the opportunity to participate in a
>real discussion of some very interesting issues.


Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480