Most of the comments under this thread have been more
substantive the past couple days. Congrats! Let me note,
however, that the conversation still beats around the bush.
Icann is trying to govern without the consent of the governed.
The Board is presuming to rule without ever being elected by
th
> This is the unholy alliance that gave us the ICANN board.
We still do not know who was part of that alliance, what criteria they
used to select the candidates for the initial board, and what quid pro
quos were made among those doing selecting.
(We've been assured that those selected mad
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Greg Skinner wrote:
> I'm not on the ifwp list any more, so you can either reply to me
> directly, or forward my comments to the list, as you wish.
>
> > ICANN is "trying to organize bottom-up". This is why it was imposed on
> > the Internet by a small group that has never
> I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its
> many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not governing
> the world, and god forbid *anything* should be put to a global vote. It is
> trying to organize bottom-up courtesy of the people most concern
Ken and all,
Thank you Ken for your comments again in response to Esther
Dyson here. Quite good, and very accurate historically.
Ken Freed wrote:
> Esther --
>
> Your attitude disenfanchises billions. Your distrust of the masses
> is misplaced. I believe educated people will make the right c
Jim and all,
Excellent point here Jim. I cannot argue with your assesment/logic
in any way. I doubt that any of the ICANN BoD or the DNSO
NC can either.
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find i
Esther --
Your attitude disenfanchises billions. Your distrust of the masses
is misplaced. I believe educated people will make the right choices.
You'd apparently rather side with those who prefer the masses be
kept ignorant. more easily led around by the nose. Your remarks to
me in our interview
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find it
> and repeat it as well as I can.
>
> I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its
> many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not
Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find it
> and repeat it as well as I can.
>
> I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its
> many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not gover
Ester: Think red Latex.
> Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find it
> and repeat it as well as I can.
>
> I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its
> many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not governing
> the
Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find it
and repeat it as well as I can.
I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its
many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not governing
the world, and god forbid *anything* shoul
I must go, but will return in a few days and we can continue the
discussion. Thanks for responding.
Tamar
At 01:22 PM 11/24/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Richard and all,
>
>Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> >>I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
>> >>alternatives scare me
Richard and all,
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >>I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
> >>alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree.
> >
> >Hi Tamar,
> >
> >What progress have you seen?
> >A larger board?
>
> [...]
>
> >Some discussion of these matt
Tony and all,
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 10:55 AM 11/24/99 , you wrote:
> >I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
> >alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree.
>
> Hi Tamar,
>
> What progress have you seen?
> A larger board?
Not to mention a Boa
your reply is helpful.
but as far as being scared by alternatives.(too).
I don't think I follow you here..
i don't see any aternatives to be scared by...except the MORASS that
lessig bemoans...
the very morass that allows the icanntes to do what they are doing
and get away
>>I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
>>alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree.
>
>Hi Tamar,
>
>What progress have you seen?
>A larger board?
[...]
>Some discussion of these matters would be useful.
Whayt he said. Along with:
1) If ICANN do
At 10:55 AM 11/24/99 , you wrote:
>I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
>alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree.
Hi Tamar,
What progress have you seen?
A larger board?
What realistic alternatives do you fear?
Consider that the whole big Inter
I do not think we disagree. I certainly agree with Larry Lessig, and I did
read his book. We disagree on the timing. I am willing to be more patient,
and hope that people like you will continue to demand more accountability.
I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
>Tamar concludes: But I
also recognize that ICANN has to be built.
why Tamar **WHY**?
what is gained by building the unaccountable public authority that now exists?
where do you see one shred of evidence that these people are
interested in doing with ICANN a gosh darn thing other than usi
Ken: I was the one who did not believe in the selection process of ICANN's
board and who spoke, whenever I could, for membership and election. But I
also recognize that ICANN has to be built. The current board is composed of
people whom I respect. It has the support of the government, conditioned
Ken;
Follow the money.
At 09:23 PM 11/23/99 -0700, Ken Freed wrote:
>Esther --
>
>May I offer a general observation on your IFWP postings?
>Terse retorts to report fragments avoid the larger issues.
>Many would welcome a more meaningful exchange here.
>
>Will you address the legitimacy of a gover
Esther --
May I offer a general observation on your IFWP postings?
Terse retorts to report fragments avoid the larger issues.
Many would welcome a more meaningful exchange here.
Will you address the legitimacy of a governance body that's
presuming to govern without the consent of the governed?
T
22 matches
Mail list logo
