Gordon,
I will try to outline such a set of concrete scenarios. It will take
some time. I have no staff, it is the beginning of our term and I
will take what time is necessary to do a good job. So don't expect it
this week but I will do it soon.
Dave
At 3:27 PM -0400 9/10/99, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one
>point on which I STRONGLY disagree with it.
>
>>you say: If ICANN fails it
>>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like.
>
>Vint, Esther, John and other have said the same thing.....the
>internet will be in danger, ecommerce will fail, etc is the
>additional undertone that has gone along with these warnings from
>senior net people.
>
>Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if
>you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just
>be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own
>opinions.... which is just a different way of saying to you: please
>be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make.
>
>In the absence of such reasoned debate there are far too many other
>reasons to read into what then begins to look like the self-serving
>nature of what's going on.
>
>So look Dave. Do us a favor and let us know in detail *WHY* you
>fear what happens will be so much worse than ICANN. Myself - I
>cannot imagine what could be worse. Dyson, Cerf, Roberts, Patrick
>are pushing their own agenda pedal to the floor and are doing it in
>such a way as to rigg things so that participation of other people
>with other ideas is done in such a way as to render anything but the
>ICANN party line irrelevant. Government has requirements for
>openess and accountability that have been neatly and tidily
>surgically removed from ICANN. How can you not realize this? How
>can you keep defending them? Give us substance and not assertions
>please.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Gordon,
>>
>>My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as
>>devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were
>>not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor
>>did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover
>>of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings
>>and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find
>>solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated
>>world -- it is hard.
>>
>>Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it
>>was not for trying.
>>
>>I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just
>>can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat
>>something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it
>>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and
>>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We
>>must make it work.
>>
>>
>>
>>MY OPINION,
>>
>>Dave
>
>****************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board -
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control
>the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
>****************************************************************
