On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 04:10:22PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin a �crit:
[...]
> It was finally accepted by Don Heath (who seemed to have grown tired
> of Maher/POC/CORE shenanigans) but was rejected by David Maher. The
> only thing Maher would accept was the immediate designation of
> himself as an NCDNHC Names Council member. All other proposals for
> compromise were rejected by him. (Don't forget that he had nominated
> himself for the NC before the Berlin meeting, for which he was
> severely reproved by people on ISOC's own lists). Thus the deadlock
> at the end of the day.
You, as always, are economical with the truth. Here is the actual
ISOC/POC supported version of the disputed section:
Until August 31, the NCDNHC shall be governed by an interim
committee of five officers to be selected by nominations, to be
made on or before June 21, and an election to be conducted on June
25 by email ballots of the Founding Members.
The primary purpose of this committee is to constitute the initial
membership, keep accurate and complete records of confirmed
members, and to generate new membership in the NCDNHC. Toward that
end, the Committee will operate a mailing list connecting the
members. Beginning August 1, 1999 nominations for the Name Council
will be opened.
New members shall apply to the interim officers for membership.
the interim officers shall ratify the new members by a majority
vote. In case of rejection of an application, the application
shall be submitted to a majority vote of the existing membership.
The interim officers shall also draft and submit to the membership
for approval: a specific procedure for electing the third Names
Council member, as per Section IV.B.3 above (this must be done
before August 1); a proposal for a permanent officers structure
and, if deemed necessary, a credential challenge and dispute
resolution process.
The version you supported named four individuals (Michael Sondow,
Milton Mueller, Don Heath and Roberto Gaetano) as the initial
officers instead of allowing an election by the existing
organizations which came together to form the constituency.
That is, you wouldn't play unless you were APPOINTED to the governing
committee, because you knew you could never win an election.
> > Except when you realize that the three groups weren't really three
> > groups -- Mueller at best represented a single organization; Sondow
> > represents an organization with no members.
>
> Mueller and Kleiman are now the offical designated Internet
> Governance Committee of the ACM, an international non-commercial
> organization of some 80,000 members. As to the ICIIU proposal, it
> was signed onto by twelve non-commercial organizations including Tom
> Lowenhaupt's Communisphere Project (a community networking project
> of Community Board 3 in New York, comprising 125,000 families),
> COMTELCA (the Central American telecommunications and networking
> clearinghouse), and REDI (the Spanish/Latin American cyberlaw
> association), to mention only three of the ICIIU's supporters. To
> say that the ICIIU proposal was only supported by myself (or only by
> the ICIIU) is simply not true.
So, Mr Sondow, you claim you worked with those people who signed up
with you. Do you have an archive of the mailing list where you
discussed this stuff, so we can all examine your open and transparent
processes? Could you point us to the web pages of REDI? A cyberlaw
association must surely have a web page, but I have searched
altavista, and don't find anything. Or could you point us to the web
page of COMTELCA? A "telecommunications and networking clearinghouse"
must surely have a web presence -- could you tell me where it is? At
the very least I would expect such organizations to be referenced via
other web sites, but, nada.
Or is this all a figment, like ICIIU?
> > I wasn't there, but I was watching, and what you say above is not
> > what was said in the televised report. The competing proposals were
> > not about Names Council members, but about some sort of membership
> > committee;
>
> Not a membershop committee, but a committee to oversee an outreach
> to new non-commercial organizational members, to prepare a website
> and mailing list for the constituency, and, yes, to fairly assess
> the legitimacy of applicants, all on a temporary basis until the
> board approves the NCDNHC. What could be fairer? The ACM and the
> ICIIU went so far as to include the ETSI representative, Roberto
> Gaetano, on this ad hoc committee, even though he is a member of
> CORE. What more could we do, except to give ISOC and David Maher the
> NCDNHC on a plate?
Oh right -- much better to give the NCC to a charlatan and a fake.
> > and the two proposals were as follows:
> >
> > 1) (Sondow/Mueller proposal): The committee would be Sondow, Mueller,
> > Heath, and Gaetano. No elections; just picked by fiat.
>
> What fiat? Mueller, Heath, and I were the submitters of the three
> constituency proposals. In every other constituency, those who wrote
> the proposals negotiated the compromise guidelines submitted to the
> board. By what logic would the organizers of the NCDNHC be denied
> that same right?
>
> > 2) (The Heath proposal): The committee would be elected by the
> > founding members of the NCC.
>
> If there wasn't sufficient justification for accepting the ICIIU
> supporting organizations as the founding members of the NCDNHC (even
> though they were only asked to adhere to the NCDNHC and not to the
> ICIIU), there is even less justification for accepting the ISOC
> supporting organizations, who were told untruthfully that ISOC was
> the only organizer of the constituency.
Bullshit.
> The only possible solution to the impasse was, and remains, the
> extension of the constituency to more non-commercial organizations,
> so as to ensure that no one group captures it. This is what the ACM
> proposed and the ICIIU accepted as a compromise, and what was
> rejected by David Maher and Don Heath for fear they would not be
> able to control the new members.
Bullshit squared. Indeed there is a real danger of capture here, by
a fake organization, with problematic supporters.
You are a charlatan and a knave, and nobody can trust anything you say.
You talk about open processes, but there is nothing open about what
you are doing.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
