On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 11:03:22AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > Joe Sims wrote:
> > Karl, I don't want this to appear condescending (even though it probably
> > will)
>
> I expect condescension from you.
>
> But don't worry, it's easy to dismiss.
>
> And as I've said, I'm glad that you have finally come around to the BWG
> position that you fought so hard against last year.
Nobody has change position; the wording of the bylaws hasn't changed.
The "BWG position" as you describe it, therefore, is based on a
complete misunderstanding of straightforward language. Now that you
finally understand the obvious interpretation, perhaps you can
understand why many people view the BWG changes as useless window
dressing that actually changed nothing.
> I am indeed happy for the new interpretation.
Actually, I am glad that you finally understand the same old obvious
interpretation that most people have understood, even if you must
engage in this face-saving rhetoric to cover your prior
misunderstanding.
> I'm glad that the board now has full, unfettered power to govern the
> actions of the corporation, that the board can stop any SO action and that
> the board can initiate any action despite what an SO might think.
>
> It's good that the board is now clearly in the drivers seat, that they
> have no place to hide their ultimate responsibility for actions taken
> under the name of ICANN or its sub-bodies.
>
> It is now very clear that, for example, the ICANN board can step onto the
> PSO and change a protocol parameter should the board feel that it ought to
> do so.
>
> It is now clear that the ICANN board has the power to come up with its own
> IP address allocation plan and adopt it without ever listening to one word
> the Address SO may say.
Unfortunately, you still fail completely to understand. The only
power that ICANN would have over the address registries would come
through a MoU that ICANN would sign with those registries. That MoU
does not yet exist, however, by its nature it will be a mutually
beneficial arrangement between the Address registries and ICANN.
ICANN has *no* power except as may be agreed to via contract. It has
*no* power to force the address registries sign a contract. In fact,
ICANN has *no* power except as may be arranged through such contracts;
the only power it has to date, such as it is, comes from the MoU with
the USG.
> As for the content of your comment --
>
> I'm observing that you seem not to know about the vast discussion that has
> occurred about the powers of the board and the SO's. You really ought to
> watch the mailing lists and not the nearly vacuous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I watched the "vast discussion". That "vast discussion" was a product
of the above mentioned confusion on the part of you and a few others,
and the vigorous support of NSI and its paid operatives, who of course
were delighted to exploit whatever confusion they could find. After a
while the people who actually saw through the confusion simply stopped
trying to argue with you, because ultimately the BWG mods made no
difference anyway.
In other words, Karl, thanks for wasting our time.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
