Re: [ga] Response to Bret

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Gary and all assembly members,

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> 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.

  Yeah you were and still are.  So I again thank you for that,
Gary despite you unfortunate missives regarding myself and
our [INEGroup] members.  Of course we understand that
some folks, like yourself are sometimes terribly disturbed
by many things that perhaps you take too personally
and therefore seem to find a need, like Joe, to use
a personal attack to vent those frustrations.

> You
> are the netkook poster boy for Joe Sims and others to point to,
> to show why public participation in ICANN can never work.

  Well Joe has clearly showed, not just to me but to many
others that he does not have a clue as to what he sometimes
is really talking about.  Of course congress and other governments
have taken note of that but are not quite direct about stating it
as I am.  Hence I can understand your missive here, and
take that into account when reading this response.

>
>
> Thankfully, you are almost alone in that regard, with
> allowances for your imaginary friends.

  Hardly.  Outside of our members, as has been documented
on this very forum on a number of occasions amongst a host
of other forums discussing ICANN related issues, your
unfortunate inaccurate contention here is less convincing..

> 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

  No need.  But I do appreciate the interest and concern.
I will be just as happy to provide you with the same
financial support in seeking some mental rehab and you
can take along you keyboard to boot!  >;)

>
>
> >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

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