On 14 October 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jay Fenello in the news:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html
>
>Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major
>financial stake in the issues?
>
>Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid
>consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with
>what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they
>have a natural inclination to say.
Yeah, Kent. Heaven forbid, someone with a major financial stake in
the issues should participate in forming DNS issues...oh, wait, that's
pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it?
Of course, ICANN's been handed the opportunity several times to change
that, and has inexplicably turned it down every time.
Kent, ICANN is nothing *but* monied interests. There's only a handful
of people with any actual say in the proceedings that don't have
a financial interest in the outcome. Those of us who do not stand
to gain financially and do not currently have any kind of direct
say in what goes on keep trying to change that, and keep getting
batted down by the large-money folks.
(and don't bring up the non-commercial constituency. Non-commercial
does not imply non-profit. Believe it or not, there are people out there.
Individuals. Unique, countable human beings, who want nothing more than
to have a say in future policy decisions, because those decisions
directly impact their lives. And the people in power remain blind
to that fact, preferring to remain ignorant than to move ICANN to
a position where it would be a truly open entity.)
--
Mark C. Langston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA
