At 11:58 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
>handled this issue.
>
>We can rehash all of the arguments that
>went into the Paris Draft, but given the
>ICANN Board's proclivity to accept easily
>captured structures, I doubt that any
>good would result.
It's OK if you don't care to talk about it. I'm sure your time is as
valuable to you as mine is to me, and if you're frustrated to the point of
not wanting to "rehash" things that help fill in the story and provide a
view for me (and presumably others on the list), others will no doubt pick
up the discussion.
>[...]
>
>I'm sorry if you feel abused, Jonathan,
>but why have you all of a sudden become
>the voice of a "reasonable" ICANN -- an
>ICANN apologist, if you prefer.
An apology with the left hand and a new insinuation with the
right. :) I'm talking things through and asking questions based on what
I've seen, heard, and read. If by "apologist" you mean someone who either
unreasoningly defends something, or defends it for "hidden" reasons (e.g.
I'm getting paid to do so or because I've done so before), I'd hope the
former isn't true and I know the latter isn't true. My views are my own;
they're not even the Berkman Center's, much less ICANN's. They're open to
change, which is quite typical in an academic environment where the point
is to integrate new insights to get it right, and might seem like
"squishiness" or opportunism elsewhere. These are the sorts of arguments
Lessig, Nesson, and I will have when we're talking about Net
governance--which, given that we all work and teach within an Internet
research center, is something we might actually do because it interests
us. I'm coming to understand why most of these arguments (arguments as in
"people taking different views," not as in "people hurling verbal rocks at
each other") take place off-list or in person. It's too bad, because there
are plenty of other online environments where people aren't constantly
accused of being knaves.
>If you were so concerned, shouldn't you
>have been involved when it could have
>made a difference?
Again, you hold me to a standard I'll flunk. I'm concerned about many
things in ICANN, and have given it a huge swath of my time and
attention. I was busy serving on the MAC and working on remote
participation while you were working on DNSO issues; I'm sorry I didn't
have energy and interest for all of it. I wouldn't think it should invite
criticism of the "where were you when..." variety simply because I'm
discussing it now. I wouldn't for a minute criticize you or anyone else
for failing to show up at an open MAC meeting, or lodging a comment on
iterative MAC reports, if you later wanted to talk about the membership
recommendations. And for the record, I'm glad you made yourself heard at
our meeting in Cambridge--and don't care at all for whom you might have
been an "apologist" or who paid your way to be there.
You're right, though, that both of us have better things to do than send
messages like these to each other. It's never fun to let "the other guy"
get the last word in if there's a sense that it's a volley, but I won't
assume you're changing any of your views if you don't reply, and hope you
won't mind if I don't reply to other posts that include insinuations or
outright claims of bad faith. ...JZ
>Jay.
