[ga-abuse] Fwd: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

Personal Attack by Gary Osbourne.


>X-Sender: gro@mail.direct.ca
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:59:27 -0700
>To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
>From: Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret
>Cc: Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>, ga@dnso.org,
>         icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>,
>         Don Evans <DEvans@doc.gov>, Karen Rose <krose@ntia.doc.gov>,
>         Robin Layton <RLayton@ntia.doc.gov>, kathy smith 
> <ksmith@ntia.doc.gov>,
>         "Nancy J. Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>,
>         Clyde Ensslin <censslin@ntia.doc.gov>
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>
>At 07:13 PM 29/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
>>Gary and all assembly members,
>>
>>  Gary, thank you for you support on this in your comments below.
>
>For the record (and I apologise to those who may have filters
>not fine enough to catch Jeff Williams by name in the body of
>the post though they may otherwise intend to, he is certainly
>normally snagged in mine) I wasn't supporting you Jeff. You
>are the netkook poster boy for Joe Sims and others to point to,
>to show why public participation in ICANN can never work.
>
>Thankfully, you are almost alone in that regard, with
>allowances for your imaginary friends. I will happily send
>along a few dollars to support you though, if you promise to
>immediately leave your keyboard and seek, and try to make
>good use of, professional medical treatment. -g
>
>
>>Transparency is very important if ICANN is to remain viable
>>and representative of the stakeholder/user Internet community
>>as well as business and other interest areas.  Right now it seems
>>that Joe does not know how to accomplish providing transparency
>>or just doesn't agree that transparency is necessary.
>>
>>   I personally believe that is it clear that Joe and Vint are from the
>>Old School of "Old Boy" network method of accomplishing and
>>addressing the Transparency requirement.  Problem with this
>>sort of approach is the in the Internet world this just doesn't
>>work and can backfire on you accordingly, leaving ICANN
>>in a position of growing distrust and dismay by the vast
>>majority of stakeholders/users...
>>
>>Gary Osbourne wrote:
>>
>> > At 07:44 PM 28/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>> >
>> > >This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their
>> > >peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care
>> > >about this effect.  They would rather have the "benefits" of a
>> > >homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost
>> > >surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.
>> >
>> > I don't know if I'm one of those who want some
>> > peculiar brand of transparency. I do know that
>> > "to the maximum extent feasible" is at odds with
>> > Vint Cerf repeatedly telling Karl Auerbach to
>> > "take it offline" at Stockholm. It wasn't Karl
>> > doing the homogenizing. I also don't think your
>> > trip to Europe to discuss ICANN reform without
>> > the knowledge, let alone the vote, of at least
>> > some of the BoD members was particularily
>> > transparent. Was there some valid, logical reason
>> > for keeping it from them? If so, surely it can be
>> > made public now.
>> >
>> > I've served on numerous not-for-profit Boards
>> > going back over 30 years, some of them dealing
>> > with quite contentious matters. Only rarely would
>> > one go in camera to deal with sensitive items
>> > such as personnel, litigation, or something
>> > contained in an NDA, for example. There were also
>> > committees of the whole where directors could
>> > express themselves without fear of being quoted
>> > later. That is all understandable and reasonable
>> > to me, though I will add that the inclusion of
>> > staff or lawyers in camera was only if absolutely
>> > necessary to a specific topic, and neither were
>> > ever included in committee of the whole (a mini-
>> > retreat as it were) so that discussion needn't
>> > be homogenized on their account, as they aren't,
>> > by definition, part of the 'whole'.
>> >
>> > I didn't have a problem with that as ultimately
>> > people were held responsible, proper minutes were
>> > kept, including who voted for or against or
>> > abstained, and these minutes were ratified and
>> > published in a timely fashion. I've never seen
>> > (whether from orgs that dwarf ICANN by any metric
>> > but global impact, or from village PTA meetings)
>> > such sparce and tardy minutes as eventually come
>> > out of ICANN Excom and Special meetings.
>> >
>> > Combined with sudden surprises out of nowhere
>> > like the Verisign renegotiation, ICP-3, and the
>> > Roadmap to Reform, none of which the community
>> > were expecting, let alone requesting, how can
>> > such secrecy be seen as "consistent with
>> > procedures designed to ensure fairness"? What
>> > we have with the ICANN not-for-profit is an org
>> > that uses secrecy as its default mode, and only
>> > opens up if, when, where, and to the extent
>> > that it absolutely has to.
>> >
>> > That does not instill or sustain trust that all
>> > parties' interests are being dealt with fairly,
>> > so any additional non-open, non-transparent
>> > meetings are bound to be suspect as just leading
>> > to more, perhaps unfair, surprises. What I find
>> > peculiar is that you find such suspicion peculiar.
>> >
>> > There's something I learned in school, and I know
>> > I'm not the only one. If you hand in what you hope
>> > is the right answer but you can't show your work,
>> > the default is to assume that you're cheating. If
>> > you're lucky, you can convince them you're guessing.
>> >
>> > There are a number of valid, logical reasons why a
>> > number of diverse affected parties, including those
>> > who (s)elect BoD members, would like to know if the
>> > BoD answers are just being cribbed from its staff
>> > and lawyer. In absence of evidence to the contrary,
>> > that seems to be the default, and safest, assumption.
>> >
>> > That it is a lawyer and staff here now showing their
>> > work, rather than Board members (other than Karl,
>> > does this count as offline?), leaves only one
>> > question, is the Board cheating or just guessing
>> > when it comes to reform? It's all academic anyway.
>> > both rate an F. -g
>> >
>> > --
>> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--
>>Jeffrey A. Williams
>>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
>>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>>Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

  Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
   .W I D G I T A L . ESPware.
.we make widgets help digits.