Jay, Esther and all,
Jay, as you know the ICANN and especially Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts
know very well what they are doing. They are ignoring minorities, and even the
Majority to service their particular cabel of a very tiny minority. They do
not through their words, but through their actions, and purposefully so. Why
the NTIA cannot clearly see this is, is a mystery to me, as it is to many
others. This sort of determined practice and process which the ICANN
Interim Board is conducting is akin to some of the practices of the
KKK of the old south to which as a jew I am particularly well aware of.
It is indeed apauling....
Jay Fenello wrote:
> >At 8:27 PM -0400 4/26/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >>Seriously, this (plus many other similar postings, not picking on you
> >>Mikki!) makes me wonder: why bother with constituencies if everyone wants
> >>to join each one? (Yes, not each one, but most of them.....) I say this
> >>not in hostility, but in an effort to open a discussion. What is the purpose
> >>of the constituencies (other than to elect NC members)?
> >>
> >>FWIW, do you have time to be active in all of these? Does Jay Fenello? And
> >>get all your real work done too?
>
> Hi Esther,
>
> Frankly, you're right -- I don't have time for this.
>
> But due to the ICANN Board's refusal to understand
> the issue of minority representation, I and others
> feel that we have NO CHOICE but to jump through
> your hoops to have any voice in your sandbox.
>
> As I pointed out at the DNSO meeting and your
> press conference in Singapore, allowing entities
> to participate in multiple constituencies is
> extremely disadvantageous to minority stakeholders.
>
> What could have been one minority constituency
> among seven, is now seven constituencies for the
> majority, and NO VOICE for minorities.
>
> If we are lucky, we will garner enough support
> to have marginal representation in a few
> constituencies. More than likely, we will be
> so diffused, that the minority positions will
> be steamrollered in a most offensive way.
>
> Of course, your refusal to understand why the
> supporters of the Paris draft were so opposed
> to having overlapping constituencies reflects
> a much broader problem -- ICANN does not listen
> to the Internet community!
>
> [This is exactly why some Internet old-timers are
> planning to route around the damage (aka ICANN)!!]
>
> I'm sorry if this does sound hostile, by my
> frustration is showing.
>
> Upset in Atlanta,
>
> Jay.
>
> >>Esther
> >>
> >>At 12:48 PM 26/04/99 -0400, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >>>DNRC wishes to join the following constituencies, for the following reasons:
> >>>
> >>>ccTLD registries:
> >>> DNRC has been instrumental in providing commentary for the
> >>>reformation of the .US domain.
> >>>
> >>>Commercial and business entities:
> >>> DNRC is an advocate for commercial small business interests
> >>>
> >>>gTLD registries:
> >>> DNRC has been a long standing critic of overly broad domain name
> >>>dispute policies
> >>>
> >>>ISP and connectivity providers:
> >>> DNRC has an interest in this constituency vis-a-vis the
> >>>requirements placed on them to "police" the domain name space
> >>>
> >>>Non-commercial domain name holders:
> >>> DNRC is an advocate for non-commercial domain name holders, and is
> >>>itself a non-commercial domain name holder.
> >>>
> >>>Registrars:
> >>> DNRC has an interest in this constituency vis-a-vis the
> >>>requirements placed on them to "police" the domain name space
> >>>
> >>>Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
> >>> DNRC has a long standing interest in protecting individual and
> >>>small business interests against overreaching by tradedemark, intellectual
> >>>property, and anti-counterfeiting interests.
> >>>
> >>>DNRC has made public its wish to be included in these constituencies, and
> >>>especially the "trademark" constituency several months ago. Unfortunately,
> >>>our desire and public statements and inquiries have largely been ignored,
>
> >>>save for an invitation to the Toronto meeting less than 36 hours prior to
> >>>that meeting. As a group that has been involved in this process since
> >>>prior to the Green Paper, we feel this is a rather strange way of
> >>>fulfilling the White Paper's mandate of openness, transparency, and
> >>>accountability.
> >>>
> >>>Like others, DNRC will work with similarly situated organizations in an
> >>>attempt to take the best features from any of the plans submitted and
> >>>generate a broader consensus document.
> >>>
> >>>Please let me know if I can answer any questions for you regarding this
> >>>status report.
> >>>
> >>>Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>>Mikki Barry
> >>>President
> >>>DNRC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>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 http://www.icann.org
> >>
> >>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> >>PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> >>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
> >>
> >
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
