Ivan and all,
Ivan Pope wrote:
> >This isn't humor. We were promised in Boston that the most outspoken
> >opponents of ICANN would be invited on to a committee which would propose
> >a membership structure for ICANN. What has happened is that two of the
> >less outspoken people have been invited to become a small minority of a
> >small committee.
>
> I was in Boston. Jim claims that 'We' were promised that 'the most
> outspoken opponents of ICANN would be invited on to a committee.
I was NOT at boston, but I do recall that what Jim is asserting from
reports of those of our group that WERE there reported back to us.
It is also in the transcripts of the Boston conference. In addition the
Boston conference was a dismal failure as was the Brussels meeting
as it was sparsely attended (86 registered attendees I believe). One
wonders if the ICANN "Initial" and INterim Board knows how to conduct
a conference...
>
> I have no recall of this 'promise'. I find it hard to believe that it would
> have been made, largely because it makes no sense. Why would ICANN wish to
> invite a self-defining group of 'outspoken opponents' to form a majority of
> a membership committee?
Easy answer to this question is that if they want broad consensus they
must sway the vast majority, which is currently not in favor of the ICANN
"Initial" and Interim Board to begin with or is opposed to the Bylaws
that it has issued thus far. And no small wonder.
>
>
> ICANN is ICANN. It can only be ICANN. It cannot be its own opposition,
> though it can and must take those views on board.
WHy cannot the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board look at pro's and cons
and varying positions in a dispassionate manner? Certainly it can
be it's own opposition. In fact it must be to an extent if has any chance
of being excepted. It must recognize clearly and without hesitation its
own shortcomings and quickly to correct them For instance a pencil
does have an eraser on one end, right?
> The Internet consists of
> a lot more people than Jim's 'We'. They do have a right to be consulted and
> no doubt they make up the rest of the committee.
Yes they do have the right to be consulted and included. What the Berkman
center seems to be doing is not reaching out to include them to a degree,
as does the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board. And this is where the
problem starts and should be ended. but thus far this has not seemed
reasonable by those members of the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board.
It is highly doubtful the the rest of the committee is made up of these
individuals in their proper proportions.
>
>
> >I see no need to dwell on ICANN's decision to gut the membership
> >committee; anyone with the least touch of cynicism expected this.
>
> I see no need to dwell on Jim's paranoia. The problem with this process
> over the last three years is that the nay-sayers have consistently and
> continuously slowed the process by crying foul. They continue to do this to
> no-one's benefit but NSI's.
They cry foul because for the past three years the process has had
a foul odor and continues to have one. If it looks like a skunk, walks
like a skunk, and most especially smells like s skunk, it is reasonable
to assume that it is a skunk!
>
>
> Ivan
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
