Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> I said that I considered her a straight-shooter, not that I agreed with
> her course of action. She is certainly not mired in the Machiavellian
> plots that are constantly theorized here.
There are many behind the scenes meetings and phone conferences
that you may or may not be aware of that Esther IS very aware of, as am
I, amongst others that have passed that information through various channels
that aren't and have never been a part of these lists discussing and
debating
these issues. This is not to say that those channels should not be open
to Esther Dyson or any other member of the ICANN Interim Board, but it
*IS* to say that engaging in those communications without making them
public is not in keeping with any definition of a "Streight-Shooter" as it
relates to this process or any other public process of this type or nature.
Hence my disagreement with your evaluating and utter SHOCK as well
that you made this evaluation knowing already as much as you do....
> Even with an opponent, one can
> still have respect for their character. Simply, I don't credit her with
> excessive deviousness.
I suppose this would depend on a persons definition of "Deviousness".
Given what we already know from as far back as last September, I would
forceably say that Esther Dyson is sufficiently Devious.... I lost much
respect
when she bold faced lied to me over the phone and she KNEW that I caught
her in that very lie and it was dealing with the building of TRUST from the
Stakeholder community that was the main part of that conversation. Esther
Dyson has effectively broken that TRUST which she stated several times
that she so strongly wanted from the Stakeholder community, and has done
so on several other well known occasions on these lists as well, as I am
surprised that you have either forgotten or have let pass... Unfortunately
I feel that this process is FAR too important to let them just pass. They
must be corrected before forward meaningful and constructive progress
can actually achieved.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 9:32 PM
> >
> > Roeland and all,
> >
> > Roeland, this is one place that the evidence overwhelmingly thus far
> > in this process, does not agree with you contention with respect to
> > Ester Dyson. I was SHOCKED that you stated that she is s
> > "Streight-Shooter" in that you have been involved in this process
> > for some time now. Just a few of the reasons why I am SHOCKED at
> > you position on Esther are as follows:
>
> Answering the questions that you asked would put me in the position of
> being an apologist for Esther.
Roeland, I am NOT asking YOU to answer those questions, nor do in infer that
YOU should. But Esther Dyson OWES the stakeholder community straight
answers to those questions and either has not provided them, or has
skirted answering the directly and clearly. This is NOT a responsible
method in which a COB should be behaving. If I did such a thing in my
capacity as a CEO with my Board or our COB, I would likely be grievously
chastised, and rightly so for it or I would be ask to tender my resignation
within 24 hours.
> I do not intend to be there. All of the
> issues you raise are consistent with her stated goals.
Only one was an issue that *I* raised, the other examples I provided
were raised by others. And those questions still remain either unanswered
or not clearly and definitively answered publicly. This is unexceptable
behavior for any COB to do, not to mention irresponsible and/or
purposefully devious.
> Esther is very
> honest about the goals.
About what /whos goals? ICANN's or the stakeholders/White Paper's
required goals? About the ICANN's Interim Boards goals or the stakeholders
goals for ICANN. Whom serves whom? Does The ICANN Interim Board
serve the stakeholders in the public interest, or does the Stakeholders
serve
the ICANN Interim Board? Form what we have seen thus far it seems that
the latter is the *Acctual* situation. And this is by definition and
according to
the precepts of the White Paper, improper and not appropriate. It is Esther
Dyson as COB along with Mike Roberts as CEO of the ICANN Interim Board
that bear the responsibility and the DUTY to serve the stakeholder
community.
This they have NOT done, and are NOT doing, as is plainly evident, and
punctuated plainly in Singapore.
> She does whatever she has to do to accomplish
> them. She doesn't deviate from the target. Although I am dismayed by the
> goals, and the tactics used to get to there, they are very transparent.
> It is not like we are told to expect one thing and are handed another.
> This is what I meant by a straight-shooter.
>
> However, I do most vehemently disagree with the goals and the process.
> Also, I believe that it is others, of the BoD, that are responsible for
> some of the bait-and-switch tactics that we see.
Yes, but others that are not even ICANN Interim Board members are calling
the tune. And yes, Mike Roberts, which I am assuming you are primarily
referring to here indirectly, it in a larger way more responsible for the
lack
of accountability and openness of their decision process. They are setting
the goals irrespective of the stakeholders desires as a whole, and in direct
violation of the White Paper.
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
