[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
At 03:02 PM 10/13/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
>others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>your system. Thank you.
>you understand, I am sure, but simply don't accept, that others (like the
>USG and what I percieve the vast majority of those in the Internet
>community that are participating in this process) think that what is being
>done is fully consistent with, and indeed implements, the White Paper. As
>for the Green Paper, the White Paper reflected the fact that the vast
>majority of those that commented on the Green Paper completely rejected its
That is not correct!
The Green Paper [GP] was the result of an extensive
U.S. Government sponsored inquiry into the Internet
Governance question. It was an attempt to resolve
the dispute between the supporters of the gTLD-MoU
(another governance proposal), and what Joe likes
to refer to as the "outliers".
[Note ==> the so-called "outliers" were once a
*majority* of the IFWP process, as the consensus
points from that series of four world-wide
meetings easily confirm.]
When the GP was announced, it received fierce
opposition from the more Socialisticly inclined
European power base, the gTLD-MoU supporters,
and the popular media. It was also tied to the
redirection of the Root Servers by Jon Postel,
in what many considered to be a warning to the
So, the U.S. backed down to the White Paper.
Instead of deciding the divisive issues, the
White Paper laid out a framework for self
governance, with the stated intention that
this self governance would fairly decide
Now, according to Joe Sims, we can see that
the backers of ICANN believe that the White
Paper was a victory for the gTLD-MoU forces.
Consequently, they have pursued an agenda to
implement the gTLD-MoU, without any regard
to other community input.
And this, in a nutshell, is what's wrong
>So while I understand that you don't like the way
>this has proceeded, my perception is that is a very definite minority view,
>and thus following it would be inconsistent with an attempt to seek
>consensus (which by definition does not allow a distinct minority view to
>frustrate the predominant view of the group). This leaves us with an
>agreement to disagree, and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, and
>free to articulate it. I am not required, however, to accept it.
> image moved "Richard J. Sexton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> to file: 10/13/99 01:15 PM
>To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
>Subject: Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
> >Or to say it another way, we want democracy but only if the vote is
> >to us. We want to use the rhetoric of democracy to advance our cause, but
> >we certainly do not really want it because our influence would be diluted.
>Thats rediculous. Who would want that? We really want is an arrogant
>board picked in secret that meets in secret but let compnaies organize
>and vote but who disallow any individual participation and who marginalize
>any opposition and make up anything they want and claim there's consensus
>it. Yeah, thats's the ticket.
>We're not asking for utopia, Joe. We're just ask that you do what
>the white paper says you should do. And THAT'S a compromise position
>that's being held out to you, the white paper was gutted badly by
>concessions IRA made. What we really want is the green paper
>but are willing to compromise. But that is our line in the sand.
>"I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess
>I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that
>way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining
>has a touch of grey" - JG.
New Media Relations