[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That said, I am curious. I have no idea how/why/where/when you managed to get
> the impression from Joop's comments that there was any conspiracy or in fact
> any intended slur. It may have been the only inference you were able to draw,
> but it is probably the only inference I am unable to draw.
I think Ben may be acutely sensitive to any possible slur, since he is the kind of
person who would not, under any circumstances, resort to unfair or biased operation
of any kind in the web casting effort. He would find such behavior appalling.
Yes, he did omit the rest of Joop's communication.
I can certainly understand Ben's reaction, however. Not because Joop made a direct
accusation, but because virtually all of his other comments in the message featured
situations where he believed that he or the INDO had suffered an intentional
injustice or other slight. This created an impression with me that he was tarring
the web cast with the same feather. I have included Joop's full text below.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
>
>
> was there more text that you omitted to quote perhaps?
> I dont have access to my archives so I am unable to verify what is going on.
> If I am missing something, please enlighten me. Alleging without substance
> that Joop alleged something is just as serious as the presumed allegation
> (sorry for the horrible sentence construction. I left my brain behind as well
> as my files).
>
> Dan Steinberg.
>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Letter from Santiago
> Cc:
>
> Santiago 27 August, 1999
>
> Dear IDNO supporters,
>
>
> We were not the only ones to miss it. The audio/video server happened to be
> down too, for 20 minutes.
> So the only record we have are the scribe notes at
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/icann/santiago/archive/
>
> Unfortunately, it turned out to have been the most interesting part of the
> meeting, where Esther apparently asked the Board searing questions as to
> why they didn't want to heed the GA's resolution to let the IDNO in, or at
> least discuss openly why not, and have it please on the agenda right now ,
> here in Santiago.
> These questions apparently were not answered.
>
> Perhaps the answer was revealed by Board Member Hans Kraaijenbrink, who
> said at the 2 p.m. press conference that he had felt to be playing part in
> a staged play.
> That was a press conference where I was not supposed to be, but thanks to
> our good spirit someone had briefly let it slip out at the Markle
> foundation's meeting, that took place simultaneously and had attracted all
> potential spoilers.
> The "open" press conference was a longish walking distance away.
> It was a very full press conference with interesting observers and Ogilvy
> doing its job.
>
> O yes, when I had asked one of the ICANN senior legal staff, about an hour
> earlier if there was to be a press conference, he said no. Hmm.
>
> The Markle Foundation is an 80 year old financial endowment, now interested
> to make sure that there will be public/consumer/non-commercial input in any
> future cyberspace governance.
>
> The Board meeting that was public with a working video link was boring,
> with a long string of resolutions passed and again nothing about the
> Individuals and their petition for recognition, now twice repeated and
> still meeting with stony silence.
> More on that separately.
>
> The DNSO council meeting in the afternoon was a shocking display of raw
> capture, a united alliance trying to ram through some quick rules of
> behaviour for the future NC, and for WG-C, by way of orders to WG-D,
> without any semblance of proper procedure. Attempts by the six independent
> spirits on the Council to put up some feeble safeguards were crudely and
> cruelly brought to a quick vote, where the lack of balance of the Councel
> clearly showed.
> Dennis Jennings (elected by the ccTLD's) even offered $10.000 dollars from
> his own registry's funds
> to finance development of a professional set of behavioral rules for the
> NC, drafted by an independent firm such as Price Waterhouse.
> The proposal was attacked swiftly and professionally by Theresa Swinehart
> and brought to an immediate vote, where it died.
> The astonished left-over of the GA (much of it now Latin American) was
> watching all this powerlessly barely understanding what went on and
> wondering why Raul Echeberria and the other elected delegate from Latin
> America could not do anything to help stopping this or why they never said
> anything about South America.
> They were allowed a minute comment at the end of it, under the pressure
> that the auditorium now really had to be closed.
> They were too stunned to speak.
> I had nothing better to add to the audio record than that the council's
> balance could have benefited from an additional 3 independent members.
> A listless applause from some Latin Americans who understood. Everybody
> felt dazed.
> For many of them this rapid english with no longer the (superb)
> translations of the previous day available, with the jargon of motions,
> tabling, seconding, resulting in instant rules appearing on the screen
> before them, was just another arrogant display of Northern Dominance
> especially when Amadeu and Javier became Chair and Assistant-chair
> (Amadeu's vision is poor) upon the departure of first-chair, Michael
> Schneider of the ISP' constituency.
> They had understood these two very well before, when they delivered in
> Spanish and they had not been impressed by any democratic leanings displayed.
> "That man talks too much", said someone beside me.
>
>
> I had very mixed feelings when I finally walked away from the Universidad
> de Chile.
> On the one hand, I was happy to see that even the physical GA, in spite of
> the fact that the back of the auditorium had been packed with expensively
> flown-in trademark lawyers, could now find favour with us in broad consensus.
> That was more than I could have hoped for.
> On the other hand, there was this slightly scary feeling that the now
> unstoppable momentum of ICANN, in it's critical initial stage now clearly
> captured by big money interests, would roll over even the most sincere and
> determined attempts to empower individuals in the ICANN structure, simply
> because they did not fit into their antique business models.
> ***************
> P.S. I appreciate very much the financial support that the ISOCNZ* (nothing
> to do with ISOC) council has voted for our effort in Santiago, and I hope,
> also for the crucial upcoming meetings in LA .
> Good on ya, kiwi's!
> *see www.isocnz.org.nz
>
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M bootstrap of
> the Cyberspace Association
> the Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency
> website www.idno.org
> join now and add your voice to the chorus
>
>
