RE: [wg-review] Consensus
Whoa, big fella. First of all, I am on your side. Secondly, I do not consider myself a "techie". There are many here who have much greater technical ability than me.
My intention was not to reinforce an exclusionary policy, but to be a bit of a realist on what issues could be addressed by whom. End users certainly need their concerns addressed. How to address them seems to be more the issue. My intent was to suggest that we may need to address how constituency groups are INCLUDED, not excluded.
I would prefer to work in a mode of cooperation with you and the community, and have always been open to solid, constructive criticism and alternative opinion. I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of my message. Could you do me the courtesy of re-reading it addressing specifics to which you take exception?
From: Michael Sondow
To: DNSO Review List
Cc: Marsh, Miles (Gene)
Sent: 12/30/00 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Consensus
Miles Marsh (aka Gene) wrote:
> Exclusion of "real end users" in the manner you suggest is not
> necessarily a bad thing, in-and-of itself. Certain functions of ICANN
> would be inappropriate for comment from those unfamiliar with the
> technical implications.
Well, Gene, the ICANN BoD will happy to know that "reformers" like
yourself agree with them in denying consumers of Internet services
any say in the regulation of this industry. Frankly, I've never
heard any more elitist, self-serving, bureaucratic claptrap in my
life. I'm taking the liberty of forwarding your comments to some of
the international lists I belong to which are discussing the
immediate problems of the "digital divide", the suppression of
consumer protection, and the elimination of democratic procedure in
regulatory agencies. They will be most interested to see what
someone in the "opposition" to ICANN thinks.
Personally, I think that it is you, the techies, who should be
excluded, since you are obviously unfamiliar with the human