Hi Jonathan,
When you look at this debate through
my eyes, you have a long process of
incrementalism that has resulted in
a fraud that is now known as ICANN.
It started with two processes to find a
community consensus way to self-govern the
Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
and open discussions, with the result being
a set of compromise and consensus principles
that were reflected in multiple documents,
including some draft by-laws.
The IANA process featured a small committee
(ITAG) working in secret with their attorney
(Joe Sims), and apparently with input from
many foreign governments and multinational
corporations.
The first process was ignored, and the
second process was blessed with a slate
of Board members who appeared of a virgin
birth.
At every step in the subsequent formation
process, those involved with the first process
have tried to find compromise with those blessed
in the second. And while sometimes we received
lip service, for the most part, *every* one of
our concerns has been ignored in the end.
Symptoms of this bias process include board
members who don't respond to queries on the
lists, and when they do, say little to nothing.
For the most part, we have been ignored.
At various points in this process, certain
members of the first process dropped out,
claiming that the process was unfair and
captured. One of the first to go was
Einar Stefferud. Many others have left,
as well.
For myself, I tried to work within the
ICANN framework until there was no doubt
remaining -- it was a captured process.
That moment was Berlin, not just for me,
but for many of the remaining participants
left over from the IFWP process.
Of course, having multiple people claiming
capture after the same meeting raises eyebrows.
In this case, it was organizations like CPT,
CAGW, ATR, and Congress who started asking
questions.
In response, we have had blatant lies put
forward in letters from ICANN to Bliley and
CPT. We have also had a sudden burst of
participation from ICANN insiders on the
open lists. It was as if, all of a sudden,
we mattered.
The first to join our discussions was Joe
Sims. After saying virtually nothing in
the year he had been involved with ICANN,
he suddenly joined our discussions by
slinging some personal attacks of his
own in early June.
After the inconsistencies in his position
were exposed, he disappeared from the scene,
only to be replaced by you. You, like Joe,
have not be very active on these lists for
quite some time. But here you are, none
the less.
With all of that said, let me agree that you
certainly *could* be participating as you've
described below. And since there is no way
for me to know what is in your heart, I do
owe you an apology for implying otherwise.
But having been involved in the gaming of
this process for over two years, I hope
that you will forgive me for remaining
skeptical.
Throughout this process, I have had strong
opinions that I have openly shared on the
lists and elsewhere. Sometimes I've been
right, and sometimes I've been wrong.
But either way, I remain committed to
calling them like I see them.
What are you committed to Jonathan, and
why do you remain supportive of an ICANN
that is as blatantly captured as this one?
Jay.
At 09:51 AM 7/14/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>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.
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
