When I said many cultures represented I DID NOT mean in a democratic fashion but in
the context of an outlook on process. Europeans have a different perspective.
At 09:12 AM 3/13/99 +0000, jeff Williams wrote:
>Dave and all,
>
>Dave Farber wrote:
>>There are many cultures represented on the Interim Board . Many come from cultures
>that do not engage in open board meetings nor have legal requirements for public
>meetings to be open. If the purpose of openness is to insure visibility of the
>process then my suggestion goes a long way to PROTECTING the community with
>recognition of the attitudes of many of the Board members.
> We [INEGroup] don't see that there are MANY cultures represented on the
>Interim Board. I personally would say that this is a bit of an overstatement.
>Your mileage seems to vary as I am sure others does as well. The only
>sure way in which the stakeholders can be adequately protected has to
>a great extent already been subverted or overted as there should have been
>a membership organization in place as a first priority to keep the board
>honest and in check. This was not done and has yet to be accomplished.
>It also appears that there will be a membership that will not equitably
>represent the stakeholders at large, but rather one that is likely to be
>divisive through some rendition of a constituency model a la the poor
>decision on the DNSO. Hence we are starting out with an ICANN that
>is secretive, for what is now reveled as obvious reasons, and is
>structurally, and from a process point of view, BROKEN.
>>
>>
>>The Interim Board is interim, lets fix the real Board and patch the transient
>situation
>Yes, it can be fixed, however this is not difficult to do as their are decisions that
>the interim board have made a la Singapore that are NOT representative
>of the stakeholder community as is part of the Requirements of the
>White Paper. This being the case we are now seemingly dealing with a
>Interim Board that seem to feel that they can act with relative impunity and
>unilaterally as well as non-transparently. This is not a good scenario, and
>shows lack of good leadership and violates the Presidents "No Harm" policy.
>>
>>
>>I want ICANN to work as it was envisioned early by Jon and others. I see no viable
>alternative except ITU and WIPO or maybe the FCC etc. It is too late to throw it away
>unless you like the alternatives.
> I don't totally agree that the ITU and WIPO are the only alternatives. In fact
>the NTIA in the White Paper mandated that WIPO do a study regarding the
>DNS and Domain name issues with respect to Trademarks.
>
> What is needed is a interim board that is fully responsible to the
>Stakeholders as the White Paper requires. Currently this does not
>appear to be the situation. There is not a "Bottom-up" approach
>in this malignant structure and process being orchestrated by
>the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board, as well as with the less than
>helpful Berkman Center to a great degree. It is the old familiar
>political "Shell Game" that is afoot, as some recognized early on and
>now many are beginning to realize.
>>
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>At 07:20 AM 3/13/99 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>>Dave,
>>>
>>>>It seemed to me that this provides protection for all parties. When the new Board
>is elected one hopes (expects) they will hold open meetings and the observer need
>will go away.
>>>
>>>It is not clear what is being "protected" on the ICANN side.
>>>The function of the Interim Board was to get an open collaborative
>>>standards organization running, not set up a global governance
>>>regime. The secrecy only abets the latter proclivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--tony
>>
>Regards,
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Contact Number: 972-447-1894
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
