May I respectfully suggest that Ellen add a section to her Grey Ribbon
pages for "Objectors" and place messages such as Kent's on that page
for public viewing. After all, he posted it to a public list so it is
now in the public domain, and he surely wishes that his position be
widely known.
So, why don't we help him out with a little extra verbatim exposure.
And, of course, encourage others to join him on the Objector's List.
We really should not be biased or lcosed in our approach to this issue.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:57:09 -0800:
}
}Kent Crispin wrote:
}
}>I thought the pattern was rather striking in the context of a message
}>titled "spin doctoring", and that pattern would make me feel
}>uncomfortable displaying a grey ribbon even if I was otherwise
}>inclined to do so.
}
}The subject header is the title of an article published by Wired
}<http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17742.html>. A reporter,
}who presumably is not involved with this debate, chose that moniker.
}
}>So, all these things considered, I think the "grey ribbon" campaign
}>is counterproductive and divisive.
}
}Au contraire, IMHO. The grey ribon campaign provides an opportunity for
}individuals and organizations who may have different ideas about how to
}implement SO bylaws but come together on the one issue that should be a
}given: board deliberations will be open to the public. Kent, it's a pity
}that you would not add your name to the list for misplaced fear of
}something akin to guilt by association.
}
}I'd like to address the interesting points you make among your reasons for
}not supporting the grey ribbon campaign.
}
}First, it is clear that ICANN is off to a rocky start and that it needs to
}build trust among the individuals and organizations who have been involved
}with these issues YEARS before the ICANN board members signed on. The
}simplest and most effective way to do this is to hold open board meetings.
}I am not so naive enough to believe that these geographically separated
}board members don't communicate amongst themselves by e-mail. They surely
}don't show up at board meetings without having already begun discussions on
}the issues before them. Thus, I discount your comment #1 that, "Their
}only realistic opportunity for such contact is through structured meetings
}or telecons, and therefore there must be private meetings."
}
}As regards comment #2, their "insignificant budget" has no place in this
}discussion. Indeed, if they aren't fully staffed, a gallery of witnesses
}at the board meeting will assure that no misinterpretations of the
}deliberations or the votes are made.
}
}KC: #3 "ICANN lives in a press fishbowl."
}
}ER: ICANN has administrative responsibility over resources that affect more
}than 100 million individuals. These board members knew that fact going in.
}They should have both courage and the integrity of their convictions to
}place their decisions out in the open. A world on the cusp of the new
}millennium has no room for policies administered from on high without
}giving those affected by them a glimpse at the deliberative process. Think
}of all the ex post facto email explanations that won't be necessary.
}
}#4 Yes, I am certain there are some board discussions that should remain
}private. Instead of giving ICANN an all-inclusive right to withhold
}information, I'd like to see bylaws which outline what types of decisions
}(e.g., employment negotiation details, security issues) appropriately must
}remain confidential.
}
}KC: #5. "ICANN is just in its initialization phase."
}
}ER: Certainly true, and that means there may be more frequent "course
}correction" in this phase. Given that, wouldn't you prefer to know the
}reasons behind decisions as they occur rather than have to react to them
}three weeks later? Open board meetings may help forestall a firestorm of
}belated criticism if poor judgment calls are made.
}
}KC: #6 "Under these rather difficult circumstances ICANN is actually
}doing a pretty decent job of getting out information. There are
}minutes to meetings, there are public announcements, . . "
}
}ER: All the board members need to be involved in these discussions, not
}just Esther and one or two others. Further, since this IFWP list seems to
}be the defacto list for those interested in ICANN issues, is it appropriate
}for us to learn about major decisions and activities through the online
}press instead of through a message posted here? Remember, too, that ICANN
}has up to 21 days to post its meeting minutes. Three weeks of Internet
}time is about the same as four months of real time.
}
}KC: #7. "Finally, I would rather work with ICANN than against them."
}
}ER: Criticism of its closed board meeting policy is NOT the same as being
}against ICANN. I think we all share a desire to have a representative and
}fair form of administration. That doesn't mean we have to lay down and
}play dead for this to occur. We should continue to have a voice in the
}development of this new structure. My voice has taken the form of a
}symbol--the grey ribbon. If I felt ICANN was hopelessly flawed and
}unworkable, the message delivered here would be quite different than this
}grey ribbon campaign.
}
}
}Ellen Rony Co-author
}The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
}================================ // ===================================
}ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
} // \\ "Carpe canine"
} Join the GREY RIBBON CAMPAIGN to bring ICANN out of the shadows.
} See http://www.domainhandbook.com/icannt.html
}
}
}
