On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Jay Fenello wrote:
> Hi Dave [Farber],
>
> The engagement of Ogilvy resulted in many complaints
> from the Internet community. Here is how I would
> categorize these complaints, in order of importance:
> 1) Going public *before* going to the Net
> 2) Where is ICANN getting its funding?
> 3) Discount arrangements with Ogilvy.
> Your comments only address item 3!
I have to disagree with your interpretation of things. The principal
problem is ICANN's sense of priorities.
There are widespread calls for the ICANN board to become more open, so
that we can better understand the real reasons behind their actions and
so that we can better judge whether it is sensible to put any trust in
ICANN.
ICANN's response is to hire a PR agency, to put a better gloss on their
actions.
The net effect of this action has been a burst of adverse publicity,
offsetting whatever benefit hiring the PR agency might bring.
It would have been far more sensible far the ICANN board to just relax
and open their proceedings up. The cost of this would be very close to
zero.
If you stand back and look at all of this, it suggests a group of
people who simply cannot understand the value of openness.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
