Jonathon,
I admire your restraint. Please dont let the words of one interfere with
the excellent work you are doing.
Dan
(sig. file on vacation)
> At 11:58 PM 7/13/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> >Funny, that's exactly how the Paris Draft
> >handled this issue.
> >
> >We can rehash all of the arguments that
> >went into the Paris Draft, but given the
> >ICANN Board's proclivity to accept easily
> >captured structures, I doubt that any
> >good would result.
>
> It's OK if you don't care to talk about it. I'm sure your time is as
> valuable to you as mine is to me, and if you're frustrated to the point of
> not wanting to "rehash" things that help fill in the story and provide a
> view for me (and presumably others on the list), others will no doubt pick
> up the discussion.
>
> >[...]
> >
> >I'm sorry if you feel abused, Jonathan,
> >but why have you all of a sudden become
> >the voice of a "reasonable" ICANN -- an
> >ICANN apologist, if you prefer.
>
> An apology with the left hand and a new insinuation with the
> right. :) I'm talking things through and asking questions based on what
> I've seen, heard, and read. If by "apologist" you mean someone who either
> unreasoningly defends something, or defends it for "hidden" reasons (e.g.
> I'm getting paid to do so or because I've done so before), I'd hope the
> former isn't true and I know the latter isn't true. My views are my own;
> they're not even the Berkman Center's, much less ICANN's. They're open to
> change, which is quite typical in an academic environment where the point
> is to integrate new insights to get it right, and might seem like
> "squishiness" or opportunism elsewhere. These are the sorts of arguments
> Lessig, Nesson, and I will have when we're talking about Net
> governance--which, given that we all work and teach within an Internet
> research center, is something we might actually do because it interests
> us. I'm coming to understand why most of these arguments (arguments as in
> "people taking different views," not as in "people hurling verbal rocks at
> each other") take place off-list or in person. It's too bad, because there
> are plenty of other online environments where people aren't constantly
> accused of being knaves.
>
> >If you were so concerned, shouldn't you
> >have been involved when it could have
> >made a difference?
>
> Again, you hold me to a standard I'll flunk. I'm concerned about many
> things in ICANN, and have given it a huge swath of my time and
> attention. I was busy serving on the MAC and working on remote
> participation while you were working on DNSO issues; I'm sorry I didn't
> have energy and interest for all of it. I wouldn't think it should invite
> criticism of the "where were you when..." variety simply because I'm
> discussing it now. I wouldn't for a minute criticize you or anyone else
> for failing to show up at an open MAC meeting, or lodging a comment on
> iterative MAC reports, if you later wanted to talk about the membership
> recommendations. And for the record, I'm glad you made yourself heard at
> our meeting in Cambridge--and don't care at all for whom you might have
> been an "apologist" or who paid your way to be there.
>
> You're right, though, that both of us have better things to do than send
> messages like these to each other. It's never fun to let "the other guy"
> get the last word in if there's a sense that it's a volley, but I won't
> assume you're changing any of your views if you don't reply, and hope you
> won't mind if I don't reply to other posts that include insinuations or
> outright claims of bad faith. ...JZ
>
> >Jay.
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Travel-Net Web Mail.
http://www.travel-net.com/
