June 17, 1999 Dear Mr. Sondow: With only a limited amount of time to devote to the issues surrounding the Names Council formation, I am perplexed by the below IFWP posting. As the leading proponent and, to my mind, founding spirit of the NCDNHC, your absence from the planning and deliberations on its formation is a serious loss. I've supported your ongoing efforts because you are bright, articulate, knowledgeable, and energetic. Your voice stands out in a process dominated by "old timers" and vested interests and should be heard. And the colossal distance your voice must travel - from the non-commercial domain name holders through the Constituency through Names Council through DNSO through ICANN staff to the ICANN Board - demands that it be a strong one. And that, you surely have. However, since Berlin, I've wondered how it is that you ended up on the outside? Why had you allowed others to speak on your (our) behalf? I thought that perchance it was a gracious and compromising tactical move. And I imagined that decision, by one so viscerally involved with the issues, to be a wrenching one. If that was the case, it now seems your trust was misplaced. And now that the entrusted have seemingly abandoned (scuttled?) the effort, I think it appropriate that you step back in. No NCDNHC (nor DNSO) activities should move forward without your full participation. Mike, I hope that you choose to stay involved. I know it's a strain with so many immature and divisive voices in the process. But you represent so many other voices that need to be heard that it would be a societal loss to step aside. Be strong and have good luck. You need it. Also, I urge you to follow Esther Dyson's words of wisdom - applied to this instance they would decode as "Don't ever trust a lawyer again." And let me know how I can help. Sincerely, Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. Lawyers, I promise that during the new millennium I will refrain >from using cheap lawyer jokes. (That's the real millennium, beginning in 2001.) MS>Milton Mueller wrote: MS>> MS>> Michael: MS>> I am not participating actively in the Names Council. I observed their MS>> exclusionary teleconference--just as you tried to do. MS>There was a rather big difference: you and the other ACM MS>representatives were allowed to observe, but I was not. Yet I am the MS>representative of a faction in the NCDNHC just as you are. Why was I MS>excluded, while you were permitted to observe? MS>> Neither I nor the ACM-IGC has any control over the fact that the small MS>> minority of elected members that purports to "be" the Names Council is MS>> insisting upon pushing forward with meetings and the formation of MS>> working groups. MS>As Internet stakeholders, you and the ACM have just as much control MS>over this process as anyone else. Certainly you have some control MS>over the NCDNHC and who it may send as observers to a Names Council MS>teleconference. Did the ACM or any of its representatives protest at MS>the exclusion of the ICIIU and its supporters from the telecon? Or MS>did you acquiesce to our exclusion? Is the ACM colluding with ISOC MS>to put the ICIIU and its supporters out of the NCDNHC and out of the MS>DNSO? MS>> Given that they are pushing ahead, however, it is wise MS>> to keep an eye on them. MS>Where do you and the ACM draw the line between "keeping an eye on MS>them" and collaborating in their undemocratic, exclusionary MS>behavior? MS> MS>> I can assure you that I am not responsible for the fact that you were MS>> excluded from that telecon. MS>I did not suggest that you were. Nevertheles, you participated MS>without, it seems, protesting in an ICANN event that was held MS>surreptitiously, and at which persons with full justification for MS>participating were excluded. Collaboration with wrong-doers is a MS>form of responsibility. MS>> I opposed the exclusion of any legitimate MS>> observer, and I believe that the exclusion of the NSI representatives MS>> was a violation of ICANN's by-laws. MS>And the exclusion of the ICIIU and supporting organizations was not? MS>> On this last point, I am speaking MS>> only for myself--the committee has not take a position on it yet. MS>The ICIIU and supporting organizations have a position: we were MS>unjustly excluded from representing a constituency we helped form MS>and which was represented by others. Do you and the ACM suppose that MS>we will accept that with equanimity? MS>I would like to know, from your and the ACM's point of view, what is MS>happening with the NCDNHC formation process, that is, whether a MS>third-party website and mailing list have been set up, whether new MS>organizations may join the NCDNHC through it, if a compromise MS>proposal for the constituency has been drafted and if it will be MS>presented to the Board, what organizations are currently proposed as MS>members of the NCDNHC, etc. Can you shed some light on these matters MS>of concern to us? to: IN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: IN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
