At 01:46 PM 6/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>OK, document an action by the Board that was a lie or was deceptive in some
>other way. Because "Fraud must be pled with particularity", be specific as
>to how it was a lie or was deceptive (which means it is irrelevant as to
>whether you merely disagree with the act itself). We're talking about
>whether there is a good faith belief that the Board is dishonest, not a
>belief that the Board is incompetent (defining competence as whether the
>Board takes acts you would have taken had you been on the Board).
Now where did I say the word "fraud?" The question was, "can the board be
trusted?" Given the first hand evidence I have witnessed, and the fact
that board meetings are secret, and may other issues that I have personally
witnessed and been a part of, I'm afraid my answer is "no." Does this mean
I believe they have perpetrated fraud? Not necessarily. I do not have
enough evidence one way or the other to make that determination in my mind.
But frankly, I do NOT believe that this board can be trusted.
>
>
>Incidentally, NSI's alleged covert support of anti-ICANN rhetoric from the
>beginning of this process (as opposed to "we gave them a fair chance, now
>we will to subvert the process") is not a trivial matter that can be
>dismissed by the characterization "'communists are hiding in my bathtub'
>rhetoric." It speaks as to whether it can be trusted (since trust
>seems to be a relevant issue).
As someone who has been here since the beginning of this process, and
someone who had been at IFWP meetings, steering committee meetings,
conference calls, mailing lists, ad nauseum, I see no evidence of any
"covert support, " "NSI shills" or anything else you want to dredge up as
having ANY effect on the process whatsoever. (Members of CORE, on the
other hand had significant effect on the process, yet not much is being
made of that in the anals of ICANN.) I really do wish that this would stop
turning into NSI bashing. NSI is irrelevant to the current issues of
whether or not ICANN is doing what is in the Internet community's best
interest under the terms of the White Paper. No amount of money is going
to determine whether they are or whether they are not. I've written papers
on how horrible NSI's dispute policy is, represented clients having
problems with NSI, and am on a "side" of this issue that I would be on
regardless of whether NSI was there or not.
It doesn't matter whether NSI can be "trusted" or not. If NSI is doing bad
things, you can go after them through the cooperative agreement, through
shareholders derivative suits, through getting domain names in .to or
elsewhere, or through the Justice Department. Where, exactly, do we go
after ICANN if THEY do bad things?
