[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] The Untold Story! - A more realistic view (See Talkback section)
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DNSO GA <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] The Untold Story! - A more realistic view (See Talkback section)
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:48:02 +0100
- CC: email@example.com, Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, IDNO <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <Version.email@example.com>
Also for a more realistic view that compliments Jays comments here
see the Talkback section on the referenced article..
Please also add your comments to the "Talkback" section as well...
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Hello Charles,
> I take great exception with your
> article "Cut Esther Dyson a break!"
> More comments below:
> Excerpts from:
> >Cut Esther Dyson a break!
> >By Charles Cooper, ZDNet News
> >July 21, 1999 4:30 PM PT
> >Hardly a week goes by that I don't receive a barrage of flame-mail slamming
> >Esther Dyson and ICANN, the non-profit committee she heads, as subverters
> >of the common weal.
> >Self-styled Internet domain name activists have skewered ICANN, taking it
> >to task for backroom decision-making and its arrogation of power.
> And rightly so!
> >For the past several months, the committee has been on the receiving end of
> >an often vicious disinformation campaign portraying Dyson & Co. in the
> >worst possible light.
> Could you please elaborate?
> What exactly constitutes disinformation?
> Is it the fact that the ICANN Board appeared
> of a virgin birth? Is it the fact that this
> board has made substantive decisions regarding
> how the name space is to be regulated and taxed,
> while it ignored its own by-laws in the process?
> Is it the fact that this board has allowed for
> the gaming and capture of the DNSO, the first
> group authorized to appoint new members to the
> ICANN Board?
> While there is much disinformation involved
> in this debate, most of it appears in your
> article, not the well reasoned criticism
> levied at ICANN. See Patrick Greenwell's
> reply to Esther's response to Ralph Nader,
> for a more complete list:
> >The upshot is the further delay in introducing real competition into the
> >Internet domain name system, raising the specter of a breakdown and
> >subsequent balkanization of the Internet's unified domain name system.
> The competition which you describe is hardly
> "real competition". It is a classic regulatory
> approach to the allocation of assets. A true
> competitive environment would be an expanded
> name space, one featuring new TLDs to compete
> with the saturated .com brand.
> >But for the record, the company disavows any connection with the smear
> >campaign aimed at ICANN and Dyson -- even though one of the more rabid
> >anti-ICANN spammers used to do consulting work for NSI.
> WOW, those are some pretty serious charges,
> potentially even libelous!
> So let me get this straight . . .
> You claim that there is "vicious disinformation
> campaign" instigated by a former consultant to NSI,
> a "rabid" consultant who is using "spam" to perpetrate
> a "smear campaign" against ICANN! The implication,
> of course, is that NSI has fostered this campaign.
> As the obvious target of *your* smear campaign,
> please allow me to comment.
> Let me start off by saying that I am not a former
> consultant, I am a *current* consultant. If there
> exists any basis in your charges (which I hereby
> deny), then I suggest that you bring them to the
> attention of the proper authorities. (The more
> visibility on this topic, the better ;-)
> And while my comments have been directed at the
> illegitimacy of ICANN (and the many ways that ICANN
> has lied, cheated, and deceived many in pursuit of
> its agenda), I am not alone in my sentiments. In
> fact, I am part of a relatively large community of
> Netizens who are active in these debates, and who
> share many of my sentiments. See the number and
> quality of the supporters to Patrick's letter at:
> Also, see Ellen Rony's response to your article
> I'd also like to point out that my postings of late
> have revolved around two topics. The one you have
> described (aka the illegitimacy of ICANN), and the
> one you haven't -- media bias. My latter complaint
> is that the media is *NOT* covering the true nature
> of the debate we are involved in.
> Unfortunately, this debate has been framed as an
> NSI vs. ICANN battle. Nothing could be further from
> the truth. In actuality, we are fighting over control
> of the Internet -- who will be in control, and what
> rules and procedures will be used to make decisions.
> I'm not the first to make this claim. David Post, a
> legal scholar at Temple University, is among many others
> who have said the same thing. Even Congressman Bliley at
> last Thursday's hearings, equated the formation of ICANN
> with the founding of the United States of America.
> This is "The Untold Story!"
> Why Charles, are you not telling it?
> >In the meantime, the mudslinging continues.
> >Dyson, who volunteered for the post in order to contribute to the greater
> >good -- a quaint idea in these money-grubbing times of ours -- has to be
> >asking herself why she even bothered.
> >But like the legendary Jon Postel, who died last fall, she gives a damn
> >about more than lining her private pocket.
> >And that's more than can be said for a lot of the people in this silly
> >little drama.
> While I can't speak to Esther's motivation,
> I can speak to my own.
> It is true that, as the president and founder
> of Iperdome, I stand to gain personally from
> the DNS debate.
> But I can also state, if it were entirely a
> business decision, I would have left the debate
> approximately two years ago.
> I have remained in the fight because I know it
> to be the right thing to do, because I care about
> the Internet, and because I care about the World
> in which we live.
> Allowing a Soviet style takeover of the Internet
> is simply *NOT* in humanity's best interest.
> And if I thought for a moment that it would help,
> I'd be more than happy to forfeit my interests in
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
> What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
> At 04:43 PM 7/22/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
> >As one who has been closely monitoring the evolution for domain name system
> >for 3.5 years, I feel your assessment in completely off-track.
> >Early in the develoopment of ICANN, Esther Dyson, as chair of the Board of
> >Directors, urged the Internet community to "trust us". Trust has been
> >withheld from ICANN because it lacks any solid footing. The transfer to
> >the private sector was intended as a self-governing initiative. Instead,
> >an interim 10-member ICANN board generally lacking in tecHnical
> >fundamentals and historical understanding of the DNS was imposed on the
> >community out of the ether. Few of the ICANN board members have ever
> >engaged in online public dialogue on the contentious issues that concern
> >us. All ICANN board decisions to date have been made behind closed doors.
> >The Domain Name Supporting Organization, as currently costituted, has no
> >non-commercial or individual representation, although the public has
> >requested such participation. Yet, we are told repeatedly that ICANN
> >represents bottom-up coordination.
> >We are also told that ICANN can discern "consensus" from its unknown
> >stakeholders (ranging, perhaps from the 2,500 who have been directly
> >involved to the 150,000,000 Internet users) but yet it will lose the
> >ability to identify consensus of the 10 board members if its meetings are
> >open to the public.
> >The criticism of ICANN that you describe was not manufactured out of
> >"interest in scoring partisan points". I believe ICANN arrived stillborn,
> >as the people who committed time and money to participate in the
> >Internation Forum of the White Paper through the summer of 1998 were
> >ultimately denied a voice in the selection of the new corporation's
> >interim board.
> >So give *US* a break and research the history of this Internet
> >transformation before you wave the banner for ICANN. And thanks so much
> >for contributing to the disinformation and the mudslinging in which this
> >privatization process is steeped. This is not just a "silly drama" and
> >your generalizations about the participants are truly insulting.
> >Ellen Rony
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208