It seems abundantly clear to me that ICANN has a large role to play in
making it very clear that they will not favor any application whose
supporters refuse to reasonably participate in a process of resolving
differences. And this included doing so in public on the Internet.
It is not good enough to arrange for a one day F2F meeting in
Singapore the day before an ICANN BoD selection of a DNSO winner. Or
anywhere else in the world. Even California, as it is not possible to
get all the concerend parties into a single room to negotiate.
The fact is that we know how to do this on the net!
It would appear that for some reason unknown to the supporters and
editing team behind the Paris Draft, that the BWW/BWM/WBM/WMB draft
(I think I included all the various mispellings for the same draft)
supporters are simply stonewalling.
Is it that they have the word from ICANN that they are favored, and
that they only need to hang tough to win all the marbles?
If so, what options do we Paris Draft Supporters have, other than to
demand that ICANN not support this WBM behavior. itis clear to us
that we have been responsive (as Jay points out) to critical comments
about the PARIS Draft.
We have already called attention to the WBM intransigence, and ICANN
has not shown any sign of comment or even concern for how the process
is going. So, at what point do we conclude that ICANN is in league
with the WBM supporters.
As I recall, ICANN has had several private meeting with the WBM
supporters, in Boston before the ICANN "open" meeting, and in Canada
in between, and other private coaching commnications are known to be
occurring.
Also, we can plainly see glaring conections between ISOC support (now
seriously in question) and IAHC MoU support (also in serious question)
and POC/PAB/CORE (also in question) support, and the ICANN BoD and
ICANN President Mike Roberts (not seriously in question).
It would seem that ICANN should clear up all the suspicion that all
these clearly visible but private relationships imply for those of us
who are not privvy to all that private coaching and consulting that is
entirely focused on only one side of this game.
Of course, all this can be discounted as only supicion, as it is all
very hard to prove without someone on the ICANN inside breaking ranks
and providing provable facts.
But, on the other hand, we see no clear disclaimers from ICANN, in
spite of long standing calls for such disclaimers from ICANN. So,
until I see some clear disclaimers and support for merging of the
WBM/PARIS drafts, I am going to assume that ICANN is stacking the deck.
It is very simple for ICANN to counter this postion by making a few
very clear statmemnts in pupblic press released that directly respond
to my charges stated here-in.
Best...\Stef
>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:39:33 -0500:
}
}At 2/15/99, 05:55 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
}>I see a lot of thrashing to and fro on "intentions." I choose to believe
}>that all of us involved, and working, sometimes very long hours, have good
}>intentions, but still sometimes misunderstand or mistrust each other.
}>
}>I'm for working on a single draft. Before Singapore, After Singapore.... but
}>working.
}>
}>...let's continue to cut each other some slack and keep working together
}>toward creating a single approach which reflects broadness, depth,
}>globalness, inclusiveness, etc....in short, the DNSO.
}
}
}Hello Marilyn,
}
}We certainly have similar stated goals. However,
}my experience does not match our common objectives.
}For example:
}
}When people complained about the "Implementation
}Preview" clause in the Paris draft, AIP and NSI
}immediately drafted a new revision. It was posted
}for public comment, and then amended into the
}Paris Draft.
}
}When BMW supporters complained that the Paris
}Draft would not be able to make timely decisions,
}Antony Van Couvering immediately drafted some
}revisions in an attempt to address these concerns.
}
}So far, so good.
}
}Now, when the Paris Draft supporters complained
}that the BMW draft was top heavy and unfair to
}minority interests on our conference call on
}Saturday, Kent Crispin responded by disparaging
}the signatories to the Paris Draft. Then, he
}confused everyone by describing the BMW draft
}in inaccurate ways.
}
}Once again I ask -- does the business/trademark
}community condone this activity?
}
}Respectfully,
}
}Jay Fenello
}President, Iperdome, Inc.
}404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}
}
}
}
}>-----Original Message-----
}>From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 4:47 PM
}>To: DNSO.association.org
}>Subject: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems
}
