Jay, Don and all,
Jay Fenello wrote:
> FYI:
>
> >Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:59:03 -0400
> >From: Don Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Computergram INTERNET Jun 14, 1999
> >Comments: To: Simon Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Comments: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ISOC Members Discussion
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Chapters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Simon
> >
> >Remember Watergate? "Follow the money?"
> >
> > From the beginning, NSI has done everything they can to cause delay
> >in any process that could affect their monopoly position. While I
> >don't have specific details, I believe a good investigative reporter
> >would easily learn that NSI has covertly supported all of those
> >individuals who have shown themselves to be conspiracy theorists,
> >or just plain email-list games-people who do nothing constructive,
> >but spend hours being against whatever the majority is for.
Don, seems like you are attempting to spin your own conspiracy
theory here yourself against NSI. I find that somewhat amusing
given your past activities in conjunction with the ITU and the use of
www.orbs.org in IP blocking of some ISP's from posting to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list (yes I have the copies of your and other
ITU individual's post on this as well), in addition to your meager attempt
in the not to distant past at trying to intimidate Jim Dixon as well.
Therefore I must say that this comment rings rather hollow and is
a stark example of your own views of trying to "Get NSI" at any cost.
This is not and example of healthy competition...
> The
> >reason is simply that the more confusion, fear, uncertainty, and
> >doubt they can inject, the more likely it is that any process for
> >Internet self-governance, will be delayed. Self-governance of the
> >Internet is something NSI fears may interfere with their monopoly.
I don't believe that NSI believes this nonsense as it does not make good
business sense and is also in stark contrast to their public statements
to the contrary...
>
> >
> >They are eminently successful in their efforts.
> >
> >When, three years ago, the IAHC was formed, it was done so in the
> >manner that Internet activities (standards, policy, best practices,
> >etc.) had always been done.
The problem here is Don, that those OLD "Best Practices" do not
necessarily apply in the greatly expanded internet of today. Most
stakeholders see this clearly.
> The IAHC had representatives from all
> >over the world; they were for the most part selected via a process
> >that helped to assure impartiality; and, indeed, the Chair of the
> >US government's Federal Networking Council (FNC) was a member of
> >the IAHC. We did everything we should have done to keep the US
> >government in the loop and a part of this attempt at self-governance.
> >And they were involved and supportive.
That person of the FNC was a n old friend of Jon Postel's as you well
know. It is for that reason that he joined the IAHC.
>
> >
> >However, once NSI saw that we would succeed, they used their covert
> >methods, spread confusion and misinformation to key government
> >officials, including the US Congress, and got the US government
> >involved in a more formal way. The result was the "Green Paper,"
> >the "White Paper," Congressional hearings, and about 2 years of
> >delay - with NSI greatly strengthening their monopoly position
> >due to the explosive growth of the Internet. Of course, the US
> >government's intent was pure in _their_ activities.
This comment is totally revisionist history on your part Don. The
biggest reason that the USG got involved in the process was the
tremendous outcry form the public and in particular individual
stakeholders, which are supposed to be your constituency..
>
> >
> >If there is any question about who is succeeding, take a look at the
> >valuation of NSI in 1996 and today!
> >
> >ICANN is a real test of our, that is the Internet community in
> >general, ability to actually effect self-governance, or self-
> >regulation. If we, together, can create an effective self-
> >regulating organization for this relatively well-defined portion
> >of Internet administration, it will portend well for the development
> >of future self-governance initiatives. If we fail in this relatively
> >simple attempt - simple at least as compared to such things as
> >regulation of content - then the likelihood of our being able to
> >ever achieve the critical requirement for keeping the Internet an
> >independent, universal, and global means of communication, will be
>
> >dealt a severe blow.
> >
> >NSI sees ICANN as an entity that can meddle in their monopoly, a
> >privileged position that they are severely abusing, and they are
> >doing the same thing that have given them success in the past.
> >They are using the loners, they are paying "consultants" to
> >attend meetings and spread confusion, uncertainty, and doubt (all
> >unfounded), and they are winning. The result would preserve their
> >monopoly - for awhile - but help destroy the Internet as we
> >know it, and remember, as it has come to flourish.
The internet has come to flourish in part because of NSI not
in spite of it. The ISOC and the IANA have done more to thwart that
flourishment than any other organization has done through our to date
and no longer appropriate policies and procedures.
>
> >
> >I don't agree with any closed meetings by the DNSO Names Council
> >and I believe Michael Sondow, NSI's minions and anyone else who
> >wants to participate, should be able to do so.
This is good to hear, but difficult to believe as it was the ISOC that
just recently has been trying to close Michael Sondow our of the
Non-Commercial Domain Names constituency. Open that mailing list
up for all to participate, and you may find some who could believe you
statements here.
> However, I think
> >people should be aware that not everyone has pure motives.
> >Unfortunately, that's the way democracy works. We all have to
> >learn to live with it. At the same time, it is important to
> >keep a perspective of who the participants are and what they
> >are trying to do. The article, excerpted below from COMPUTERGRAM
> >INTERNATIONAL: JUNE 14 1999, is a great example of a "win" by NSI!
> >But will anyone really win?
NSI did not win anything in this mentioned article. This is an invalid
interpretation on your part here Don. It only points up the fact that
Javier Sola wished to practice his own crude form of CENSORSHIP
on a conference call. As you should recall Richard Sexton was also
kicked off of that conference call within 15 seconds, for apparently
no good reason...
>
> >
> >ICANN must succeed. NSI believes that for NSI to win, ICANN
> >must fail. This zero-sum game they are playing is a short-sighted
> >gambit.
I am glad to hear that you are against zero-sum gaming. It is now
time for you to practice what you preach. I realize that will be a big
step for you to do however given your past practicing in zero-sum
gaming...
>
> >
> >Don Heath
> >President/CEO
> >Internet Society
> >
> >At 11:35 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Simon Austin wrote:
> >>+ Self Appointed Names Council Throws NSI, ICIIU Off Meeting
> >>
> >>By Rachel Chalmers
> >>
> >>To Network Solutions Inc's fury and to the resigned frustration
> >>of Michael Sondow of the International Congress of Independent
> >>Internet Users (ICIIU), two NSI representatives and Sondow were
> >>barred from participating in a teleconference held by the
> >>provisional Names Council, part of the Domain Name Supporting
> >>Organization (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> >>Names and Numbers. "Part of what NSI has been involved with
> >>during this whole three-year process has been making sure the
> >>spirit of the White Paper is followed," NSI's Brian
> >>O'Shaughnessy told ComputerWire. "Now we're saying the process
> >>has gone wrong. We're worried about revocability. This may have
> >>gone beyond the point of no return."
> >>
> >>NSI's beef is that five Names Council representatives, two of
> >>whom were from MCI, effectively held a closed meeting after
> >>relegating NSI's Don Telage to observer status and booting
> >>NSI's Richard Sexton and ICIIU's Sondow off the call
> >>altogether. Leaving aside the fact that by-laws prohibit two
> >>members of a single company from serving on the board, NSI
> >>cites Article III 1, which states that the Corporation and its
> >>subordinate entities "shall operate to the maximum extend
> >>feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
> >>procedures designed to endure fairness." The bylaws also state
> >>call for open electronic attendance by all interested parties.
> >>As if all that weren't enough, NSI is also unhappy that of the
> >>21 seats assigned to the seven "constituencies", its own
> >>constituency - the global Top Level Domains, or gTLDs - gets
> >>only one seat, rather than the more logical three. That one
>
> >>seat does go to NSI, but the company, which represents over 90%
> >>of the gTLDs, had hoped that it would be able to give two more
> >>seats away.
> >>
> >>The controversy over the Names Council meeting is symptomatic
> >>of larger problems with ICANN and its board of directors.
> >>O'Shaughnessy points out that IANA, a two-person, $250,000
> >>outfit, has been replaced by a nine-member board with an annual
> >>budget of $5.9m. NSI is worried about that figure, too, as it
> >>has 5.9 million registrants in its database. Is ICANN plotting
> >>to levy a $1 tax on everyone who owns a domain name? But the
> >>most serious question, which O'Shaughnessy and Sondow raised
> >>independently, is that the "interim" board of directors is now
> >>calling itself the "initial" board. The interim board was
> >>supposed to incorporate and pave the way for an elected board
> >>of eighteen members. That elected "initial" board would be
> >>entitled to change the by-laws. By changing its name, the
> >>interim board appears to be side-stepping democratic procedure
> >>and claiming the right to change the by-laws for itself. This
> >>has annoyed a lot of people. "Who chose them?" O'Shaughnessy
> >>wants to know. "It's not clear that Postel chose those people."
> >>
> >>Sondow says the real power is with the members of the Internet
> >>Society (ISOC), who are picking up the bills for ICANN. He
> >>suggests that those members, especially AT&T, IBM and (there's
> >>that name again!) MCI, are seeking to regain control of the
> >>internet by hijacking the supposedly representative domain name
> >>registration process. Supporting that view is Telage's
> >>observation that the un-elected board is now imposing top-down
> >>endorsements of the World Intellectual Property Treaty (WIPO)
> >>treaty. "It's worrisome, very worrisome," a clearly agitated
> >>Telage told ComputerWire, "I think this is about control. There
> >>is a clear coalition between the ISOC [Council of Registrars]
> >>CORE and people from the trademark and intellectual property
> >>community. They're talking about how to ram WIPO through the
> >>working groups as fast as possible, without consultation.
> >>They're saying, let's just go through the motions. After they
> >>locked us out, it was a love-in. It was an amazing experience."
> >>ICANN interim president and CEO Michael Roberts was travelling
> >>and could not be reached for comment.
> >
> >--- end forwarded text
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
> -----------------------------------------------
> What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
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
