ICANN's attorney joins the flame wars. This *is* most impressive.
>Jay, you're back! Short retirement. Let me see if I got this straight:
>you and 6 of your best friends decided that this was an important
>distinction, even though it didn't exist anywhere else in the original
>documents, and because you think it is an important distinction, anyone who
>does not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by
>Fenello/BWG/IRSC)? Glad to have you back; the discussion was starting to
>trend dangerously toward substance.
>
>
>
> (Embedded
> image moved Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> to file: 06/16/99 07:45 PM
> pic25620.pcx)
>
>
>
>Extension:
>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](null),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](null), [EMAIL PROTECTED](null),
> Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Roberts
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED](null) (bcc: Joe
> Sims/JonesDay)
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Esther
> Dyson from Ralph Nader ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi Kerry,
>
>ICANNs position is subterfuge at best.
>
>The initial vs. interim board distinction
>was an issue because ORSC and BWG made it
>one. We were concerned that this board,
>formed from a "virgin birth," would make
>decisions of substance before the Internet
>community could appoint representatives.
>
>It is now apparent that our concerns were
>well founded :-(
>
>Jay.
>
>
>At 04:29 PM 6/16/99 , Kerry Miller wrote:
>>
>>Esther wrote,
>>
>>> NSI has promoted the notion that ICANN somehow has violated the
>>> White Paper by having an "initial" Board rather than an "interim"
>>> Board. This argument is pointless. The White Paper calls for the
>>> consensus entity that became ICANN to "appoint, on an interim
>>> basis, an initial Board of Directors (an Interim Board)" (emphasis
>>> in original]. This "initial" Board was to serve until it
>>> established "a system of electing a Board of Directors." Thus, the
>>> terms "initial" and "interim" were clearly synonymous in the White
>>> Paper.
>>
>>
>>Article V: Section 1 indeed speaks of an "Initial Board":
>>
>>The initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board")
>>shall consist of [a] nine At Large members, [b] the President (when
>>appointed) and [c] those Directors that have been selected in
>>accordance with these bylaws by any Supporting Organization(s)
>>that exists under Section 3(a) of Article VI during the term of any of
>>such At Large members. The At Large members of the Initial
>>Board shall serve until September 30, 1999, unless by a two-thirds
>>(2/3) vote of all the members of the Board that term is extended...
>>
>>
>>Since only the at-large members and yourself are currently sitting,
>>minus the remaining Directors indicated in clause c, beginning with
>>the conjunction 'and,' it seems to me clear that *as yet* INCANNs
>>*Initial Board does not yet exist, and that it significantly clarifies
>>the process if this 'at large' (not to say ad-hoc) half of the Initial
>>Board were designated as something else, for instance, 'Interim
>>Board. Do you not agree that when the (conscientious) history
>>books are written, they will wish to make some such distinction --
>>for instance, to make it perfectly clear that amendments to the
>>bylaws (not to mention certain other statements of policy) were
>>made without the participation of any representatives selected by
>>the organizations membership?
>>
>>(You may be interested to know that when I suggested this to Mike
>>Roberts, (3 June) he responded (which in itself is more than some
>>do!): "The Board will grow incrementally as the SO's add their
>>Directors, and as the at large elections are held. I don't see any
>>useful distinction between what the board does or doesn't do during
>>any particular stage and I doubt that history will either."
>>-- that is, whether there are member representatives or not is
>>apparently not a useful distinction. May we infer that whether he
>>carries the title of President of this board is also not very useful?)
>>
>>In particular, when you say
>>> The White Paper specifically called on the "initial" Board to
>>> formulate the necessary consensus policies to allow competition to
>
>>> be introduced as quickly as possible.
>>
>>doesnt it strike you as not merely "quick," but downright premature
>>for 9 appointed members to proceed to do the work of 19 elected
>>members? Do you not see that the problems you attribute to NSI
>>may be caused largely by your own Board's pre-emption of the
>>process? That the 'fierce resistance' you meet is simply because
>>you're not doing it right? That if you had not been in quite such a
>>hurry, you might not only have properly -- that is, on technical
>>grounds -- refused to accept their extension of nondisclosure
>>agreements to
>>
>>> the experiences of the ICANN-accredited registrars now
>>> attempting to open up the domain-name registration business
>>> to competition
>>-- but had wide public support for the 'delay' a showdown at that
>>time (instead of the present backhanded attack) might have
>>caused?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>kerry
>>
>> "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E
>>Dyson.
>>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>-----------------------------------------------
>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>Content-type: application/octet-stream;
> name="pic25620.pcx"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic25620.pcx"
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:pic25620.pcx (????/----) (0000A7A1)
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Exec summaries, glossary etc
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://cookreport.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind Ican and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
****************************************************************
