>At 09:18 PM 1/3/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>But milton, do you really believe that esther and mike and the shadowy
>>figures behind them have no intention of becoming a governmment?
>>
>>if they were only going to administer numbers, names and porty assignments
>>from the point of view of benevolent neutrality, why would they have
>>engaged in their arrrogant sleight of hand behaviour of the past six months?
>
>Just to follow the fantasy that they have been engaging in such behavior:
>An equally plausible explanation is they they want to avoid dealing with
>horrendously unprofessional, simplistic, paranoid, and offensive
>treatment... such as you have been dishing out.
>
>Even the stoutest heart will shrink from dealing with a patently and
>peristently hostile, uninformed and unproductive forum as you and other
>conspiracy theorists have created.
>
>(it's ok, Gordon. you don't have to respond. you would rather dish out
>nastiness than taste it.)
>
>d/
well crock haven't been in your gutter for a while..... shall i post some
of what your long term many year friend stef has written about
esther.....?? what's fair for me is fair for him.....and you know it
well....you are just too intellectually dishonest to throw your slime at
more than one person at a time...
here crock....read it..... i rest my case esther never had the grace to answer
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Crew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ifwp] Re: Personal response/request to: ICANN Membership Advisory
Committee
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 01:32:52 -0800
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-URL: <http://www.ifwp.org>
X-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Precedence: bulk
Hello Esther --
If you intend to use EMail to get the ICANN Membership Committee work
done, then I suggest that you say so in your call for participation!
And that you directly support the EMAil work mode.
Also, I suggest that you set up a membership discussion mailing list,
and get on with the work.
Further, I suggest that you make the list open to lurkers who may or
may not have permission to post directly, but if direct submission by
non-members is prevented, then there should be another open discussion
list provided for open discussion separate from the "committee's
workplace list".
And, next I recommend that ICANN adopt a set of civil discourse rules
for both its workplace list and its open discussion list. I refer you
to the ORSC civil discourse rules for an example of such things.
<www.open-rsc.
Frankly, I find that face-to-face helps to build good relations among
workers in large part because it allows for interactions that reach
out beyond the specific work in hand, but when the face-to-face
meetings are run like the Boston ICANN meeting of 14 November. Mostly
I think that meeting only hardened positions all around, and did
nothing to counter the building levels of antagonism and frustration.
And, what I perceive as a lack of openness, is simply a lack of
openness. What I perceive is that we are actually using different
definitions of what we mean by "OPEN". T me, it means that issues are
addresses in the open, and not cloaked in secret private discussions.
For example, all our ORSC and BWG discussions with ICANN have been
transcribed and made public, including our teleonference and all that
happened in Boston on 14 November.
But, nothing has been made public from your all day meetings with
other groups on 13 November, as the rules for those ICANN meetings
were "off the record' and "Non-Disclosure". Even the fact of those
meetings, and the attendee names have been keep from the public.
And the fact that one of those meetings was used by Mike Roberts to
privately prebrief some selected DNSO.ORG people on the probable
requirements they will have to meet in their upcoming proposal to
become the sanctioned ICANN DNSO has not been made public. I had to
learn about it by flying to Monterey, MX, and spending three days
working positively and constructively with the DNSO participants.
And, I continue to learn about how Mike is continuing to give private
advice to this one DNSO contender, but not make such information
available to any other potential contender, or to the public.
How do you square this with your response below?
Our hope and faith are sinking as all this continues, and all we get
are endless excuses for why ICANN cannot stand the heat of public
comment.
Well, out here in the public world, we agree with Harry Truman:
"If you cannot stand the heat (of public exposure),
then get out of the kitchen"
If it is good for ORSC to be forced to only speak to ICANN in public,
then it should also be good for ICANN to speak in public too.
The fact is that to ICANN, "OPEN" seems to me that selected people
must speak openly in public to be heard by ICANN, but ICANN need not
speak openly in return. Our definition of OPEN does not include the
notion of non-linear (diode) behavior.
Clearly your ICANN definition does include diode behavior. How do you
square this with the need for ICANN to gain the confidence of the
community?
Cheers...\Stef
PS: I note that you did not answer all the questions I raised, so I
must note that the remainder of them remains open.
>From your message Wed, 2 Dec 1998 14:05:45 -0500:
}
}Yes, we hope to do a lot by e-mail/lists, because we don't think that the
}committee members will be the only source of good ideas/critical thinking.
}We hope to cover travel for people who need it, but because we don't have
}a clear source of funds yet we're trying to encourage people who *have*
}employers (or private incomes!) to get it from them.
}
}Speaking for *my*self, I think face-to-face ultimately helps lead to
}coherent conclusions. (hence the late lamented wrap-up meetings).
}
}Part of what you perceive as lack of openness is shortage of people talk to
}everyone/write coherent responses. We are trying to remedy that even as we
}work on everything else.
}
}Esther
}
}
}
}At 12:41 AM 12/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
}>Hello Esther -- Speaking here for myself...
}>
}>It is clear that without some kind of financial support for travel,
}>and with your requirement for physical presence at a face-to-face
}>meeting (of unknown date and location) that the participation in your
}>proposed "membership" planning committee is going to be highly skewed
}>at best.
}>
}>May I suggest that the committee should work mainly via the Internet
}>with an absolutely minimal number of face-to-face meetings, and
}>allow lurking participants to subscribe to the committee's discussion
}>lists.
}>
}>I, for one, without travel funding, must decline to plan for a trip to
}>some unknown location on some unknown date, which is most likely
}>already too near term to arrange for low cost advanced purchase
}>airline tickets, etc, et al.
}>
}>Also, the holiday season is already upon us;-)...
}>
}>Beyond this, I am hoping that the Open Membership Committee would work
}>"In The Open" rather than in the mode of IANA/ICANN, where you all
}>listen, and then publish conclusions that cannot be aligned with the
}>public comments that can be found to review. This is a constant lack
}>of forthright candor, as we on the outside see things. From the
}>outside, we can only see what you let us see, which mostly feeds our
}>suspicions. You see, there is no way for us to turn off our
}>imaginations to fill in the blanks that you leave for us to fill in.
}>
}>So far, everything I have said to ICANN, in your public meetings, or
}>in our teleconferences has been published for public inspection, while
}>it is clear that ICANN is also having many non-public discussions with
}>other parties, without so much as even admitting that they occur.
}>
}>And then we are often told that ICANN cannot agree to follow our
}>public recommendations because to do so would break consensus
}>agreements with your main consensus backers (who are never identified)
}>and with whom you must be having a series of private unannounced and
}>unpublished discussions.
}>
}>If the Membership Committee is to operate under these same rules, and
}>you also require all the SO's to operate in this same way, it is going
}>to take you a very very long time to induce any significant trust in
}>your Bylaws, or your Board, your SO's or your closed ICANN operations.
}>
}>And, if you require more open rules for your SO's, then how do you
}>justify them for yourselves only?
}>
}>In short, you have so far taught us to trust that ICANN cannot be
}>trusted, and I am not yet seeing anything from ICANN that can break my
}>trust in my distrust of ICANN. All my hope for trust remains lodged
}>with NTIA and the DoC, and that NTIA trust comes with a gimlet eye.
}>
}>I am afraid that trust can only be earned, and then only by
}>demonstration of trustability from visible actions. Being open helps,
}>and not being open does not help.
}>
}>Self assertions cannot induce trust!
}>And "Trust me" is a "Well Known Euphemism"!
}>
}>An exchange of hostages might be useful if we both had available
}>hostages to offer. Or we might induce trust the way the Medicis and
}>the Rothchilds did it to launch the ancient banking industry, mafia
}>style, with trust in each other that if things went wrong, someone
}>would suffer. I don't know when kneecapping became popular, but
}>fortunately for all of us, those "tools" of the trade are no longer in
}>fashion;-)... But, we do note that the Medici and Rothchild habits of
}>working in secrecy have survived quite nicely.
}>
}>But anyway, short of real demonstrations of trustability, I fear that
}>we are only drifting collectively in the unknown and unknowable
}>currents of cyberspace, without steerage.
}>
}>So far, your ICANN announcements of planning for a membership committee
}>do not induce any trust at all.
}>
}>Season's Greetings and Hava Great New Year!
}>
}
}
}Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
}chairman, EDventure Holdings
}interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}1 (212) 924-8800
}1 (212) 924-0240 fax
}104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
}New York, NY 10011 USA
}http://www.edventure.com
}
}High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest
}PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
}Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
}
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
