Jay,
I tend not to overestimate the press coverage of these issues, that are
already complicated for those who have been in the debate since long.
I have seen press coverage that is biased and ultra-biased, in one direction
and the other, and I am not shocked. Of course, I understand that you may
react, in particular against the press coverage that you feel biased in the
"wrong" direction.
You also wrote:
> According to these reporters, I have been
> secretly consulting for Network Solutions,
> and my failure to reveal this relationship
> has seriously compromised my credibility
> in these debates.
>
I attach great value to your postings, that I always read with attention
(and you may have noticed that I reply when we disagree).
Let me give you my impression that the risk of compromising your credibility
in these debates does not come from failure to reveal your relationship with
NSI (which is no news to those who have followed the debate), but from
seeing a participant in a conspiracy in everybody takes a position that
happens to be close to the opinions of ICANN (example below).
> When you combine these comments, with the virtual
> black-out of the Internet Governance implications
> of ICANN and this debate, and you have a media
> conspiracy that supports this illegal and immoral
> take-over of the Internet.
>
I would welcome from your part the effort in pointing out the shortcomings
of this situation, indicating the major points to fix and the priorities,
instead of diluting your position in a global conspiracy theory that,
besides being not the truth IMHO, does not allow us to make any step
forward.
There are already quite a few people that see global conspiracies
everywhere, and you may have noticed that they have not build a strong
reputation for themselves. You do have a good reputation, please don't put
yourself in the corner, but stay in the front of the stage.
Regards
Roberto
