Joe: you message to Karl appeared on my e-mail. Tamar Frankel
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 20, 1999 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Esther
Dyson from Ralph Nader ...
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>____
>
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
>others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>your system. Thank you.
>___________________________________________________________________________
>____
>
>A reply to each of your two points:
>
>1. I see no reason why either of the things you worry about is not
>reversible. Certainly, any fee could be changed, and any dispute
>resolution system could be altered, by a future board. The only thing you
>mention that might not be reversible is the establishment of a mechanism
>for the election of nine Board members by an At Large membership; if done
>badly, and the result is capture by an economic or philosophical (or for
>that matter religious or just mischeivous) minority, do you suppose that
>the Board members so elected will cooperate in fixing the system so as to
>prevent such results in the future? And what would be the consequences in
>the meantime? If you are concerned to get this right, and to ensure that
>this transition from government control to private sector management
>actually works, then this part of the process needs to be done carefully,
>for it probably is not reversible by anything other than a governmental
>takeover -- which is, after all, what we are trying to avoid. A diverse
>Membership Advisory Committee spent several months studying this issue very
>closely, and came up with its best suggestions on how the At Large
>Directors should be elected; those recommendations are now being evaluated
>to see how they can be implemented, and more action will take place before
>and at Santiago. Thus, if you are serious about this issue, it is
>irresponsible to assert that it is not being given both the attention and
>the care that it obviously deserves. It is my impression that the Board is
>willing to accept criticism for a lot of things, and recognizes that in
>this environment it is inevitable and unavoidable, but it does not want to
>be remembered as the Board that, in response to that criticism, took
>actions that, instead of contributing to progress, in fact were fatal to
>the effort. The mechanics of the membership issue are probably the
>toughest problem the Board has faced, and nonetheless, it is highly likely
>there will be a membership process in place less than nine months after the
>Board began work. It seems to me, given the other organizational midwiving
>it had to do (the SOs) and the steps toward opening up com, net and org
>registration that were required by the timetable set by the DOC, that this
>is very fast movement, not the opposite.
>
>2. It seemed to me that a little sarcasm was an appropriate response to
>Jay's continual invocation of the Constitutional Convention and other icons
>of democracy, leavened with his usual creation of "facts" out of thin air.
>For some reason, some of the participants in this debate have no sense of
>humor -- perhaps because they honestly believe that they are watching some
>nefarious plot by some collection of evil entities to take over the world.
>For those who really do think that, nothing I say will have any effect at
>all, and so it is not useful to try to adjust for their ears. For the rest
>-- and I assume, Karl, that this includes you -- lighten up! To see this
>more as red-baiting (which is probably not too harmful now in any event)
>than satire is taking this way too seriously -- and incorrectly. The
>issues are not personalities or even particular people; they are (1)
>whether the White Paper goals are desirable (I think they are, some
>obviously don't) and (2) are we making progress toward them (I think we
>are, some don't).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>
>Two points:
>
>1. Whether one belives in the "initial"/"interim" distinction or not,
> one does have to admit that the current board is moving fast.
>
> Indeed, at the rate the board is moving, there could soon be a $1 tax
> on domain names and the imposition of a supra-national ICANN-imposed
> de-facto law of trademark-vs-domain names.
>
> And yet ICANN has not yet created a general membership or permitted
> non-commercial and individual interests to participate as full-fledged
> voices in any part of ICANN or its Supporting Organizations.
>
> All of these substantive, and largely irreversible decision could
> well be in place before there are any board members who have obtained
> their seats by elective processes.
>
> So let's just dispense with the notion of "initial" and "interim" and
>recognize
> the clear fact that the unelected board now in place is making
>permanent, substantive
> regulatory decisions that will color and transform the Internet for
> years to come.
>
> Yet while that board is rushing to make those decisions, that board has
> rejected the timely participation in those decisions by non-commercial
> or individual interests.
>
>2. You wrote the following words:
>
> > ... not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by
> > Fenello/BWG/IRSC)?
>
> The BWG is not now defining, nor has it ever defined "democracy and the
> American way".
>
> I strongly resent the Mcarthy-era tactics that are being used to
> smear those who have reservations about ICANN's behaviour and
> its actions.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
