Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 06:14:11AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:43:00 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, it was NSI that was booted. The ICANN board modified their
> > >original position in response to widely held public opinion (just as
> > >you claim they never do), and restricted NSI to one seat.
> >
> > I take GREAT offense in your characterization here Kent!
> >
> > The widely held public opinion you quote here is ONLY the opinion of
> > the majority of the rest of the so called Names Council,
>
> No. It is not. The public opinion I refer to is that expressed
> during the Berlin meeting, where a *number* of speakers stood at the
> mikes and told the Interim Board on no uncertain terms that there was
> no way that NSI should be able to nominate 3 Names Council Members.
> As a result of that strongly expressed public opinion the Board
> amended its original position, which would have given NSI the right
> to pick three Names Council Members. To be blunt, a lot of people
> were simply outraged that NSI should have that much influence on the
> Names Council.
>
> The Board TO ITS CREDIT amended its previous position because of this
> public input.
>
> That is precisely what happened at Berlin. It's a matter of public
> record -- you can watch the real video yourself.
>
> NSI now says it is going to give those extra seats to "worthy
> groups", but it DOESN'T HAVE THOSE SEATS TO GIVE TO ANYONE.
>
> NSI is simply using this as a PR ploy.
>
> These are the facts.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
This is a case where the proper response is "a plague o' both your houses".
NSI has no real interest in or commitment to open and democratic processes -
its unpopularity in the Internet community is such that it would likely find
policies arrived at by democratic means at least as onerous as ICANN's.
NSI's objective is to forestall the breakup of its monopoly by creating as
many distractions as possible. This issue is one such distraction.
ICANN's actions have played right into NSI's hands. Its continuing refusal
to heed the community's calls to conduct its affairs in an open and
transparent manner gives NSI the chance to try to claim the moral high
ground by pretending to share the community's goals. In this instance,
ICANN exacerbated its problems by creating a farcical single-member DNSO
constituency, then taking only half-measures to correct its error once it
was pointed out. Instead of restricting the gTLD constituency to a single
Names Council representative (which still leaves NSI as the sole entity with
a guaranteed NC seat), ICANN should either combine it with the ccTLD
constituency to form a unified TLD registry constituency, or admit
"prospective registries" to membership.
The IDNO is caught in the middle. To date, ICANN has given no indication
that it is prepared to recognize that individual domain holders have
legitimate interests that merit representation on the Names Council. Under
that circumstance, it is not surprising that we would jump at any offer that
appears to give us a chance for inclusion, even when those making the offer
have exceeded their authority in doing so and are merely using us as "a PR
ploy".
