"William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writing:
> 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes:
>
>> She exists. And she makes some very important points.
>I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets assume
>they are for this purpose.
>If we are having a meeting to decide if our company should open up into the
>market in Country X, should we permit someone to have the floor at such a
>meeting to only argue that we shouldn't market our product at all? The
>decision to market the product had already been made, and nothing at this
>meeting could change that. This meeting is not the place to make that
>argument, this meeting was for the narrowling defined purpose of deciding
>whether to market the product in a particular area.
The parallel here is in fact what Elaine Kamarck said at the
meeting, and she is a former staffer to VP Gore and said that
she was told by the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government to
come to the meeting.
h
She has been active in government and in government policy.
And her presentation was that what was being done was entirely
inappropriate. YET she wasn't cut off or the microphone cut out
on her, nor should it have been.
It was entirely appropriate what she had said and what I was saying
in response to her talk.
And it was entirely inappropriate that what she said was *not*
treated with the utmost seriousness by the Chair and by
the panel and instead that there was an attack on me as the
way to attack what she had said.
.
Clearly ICANN cannot tolerate any criticism or honestly look into
the nature of its root structure because it is built on a
house of cards.
So the attack on me was to deflect the attention from the critique
that needs to be made of it and to instead try to scapegoat
as a tactic.
>The meeting had a set of parameters of what the meeting's purpose and topic
>was. Ronda's statements were outside the scope of those parameters and
>purpose, and as such was not germaine to the topic at hand. I think they were
>quite generous in the tolerance they showed in letting her present her comments
even in the limited fashion they did.
The meeting had invited Elaine Kamarck to speak and she had
made the criticism and had been allowed to make it.
So it is clear that my statement was *not* outside any
parameters but only an effort to divert from any honest
discussion of the real issues that the U.S. government should
be focusing on to determine what is an appropriate and sufficiently
protective structure for essential functions of the Internet.
>William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
