Joe and all,
Yes joe, I am snipping your snobbish disclaimer that is totally unnecessary
in that you posted to a public list.
Now to the "Questionable Substance" of your post (See below).
Joe Sims wrote:
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 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.
I don't recall that Jay had retired form anything or position. So, Joe
maybe you could provide for us on the PUBLIC list, where you might have
gotten that misguided idea? >;). It also appears that you are misconstruing
Jays meaning in his previous post as well and, in part improperly attributing it
to the BWG/IRSC as well. My my, how on earth did you ever make it through
law school? >;)
Your misguided reference here to substance here in noteworthy in that without
proper PROCESS, not substance of worth can come about. Most good
legal minds know this.
>
>
>
> (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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: pic25620.pcx
> pic25620.pcx Type: Paint Shop Pro Image
>(application/x-unknown-content-type-PaintShopPro)
> Encoding: base64
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
