Jay, Becky, Senators, Congressmen and all,
I as spokesman for some 98k stakeholders must say that we [INEGroup]
resoundingly agree with Jay Fenello's comments here. I would add
with the complete support of our members that the direction and process
by which the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board has taken without the majority
support of the stakeholders/users of the internet, is a near travesty
and needs serious revision and much better oversight than is currently being
provided by the DOC and the NTIA at this time. I say this with a sad
hart and much disappointment. I hope that you Senators and Congressman
will expand or recommend to expand, your investigation of ICANN into
areas of the overall process...
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Over the last several weeks, I have made a coordinate
> effort to point out the extreme bias the press has
> exhibited in their coverage of the ICANN fracas.
>
> First, I revealed some exchanges that I had with a
> reporter at News.com who admitted that the press was
> coordinating their coverage, and how they were biasing
> their stories to make them favorable to ICANN.
>
> Then, I summarized four theories why the press may be
> supporting this illegal and immoral takeover of the
> Internet.
>
> Subsequently, I highlighted the few news outlets who
> were willing to publish the "untold" story about ICANN.
> These include:
> http://www.searchz.com/Articles/0831994.shtml
> http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_36/b3645101.htm
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html
> http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue280/item6052.asp
> http://www.rain.org/~openmind/icann.htm
> http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5166/1.html
>
> Unfortunately, for the most part, the vast majority
> of media outlets are continuing their blackout. [Is
> it any wonder that the reach of Network News is about
> half of what it used to be?]
>
> But people are starting to ask questions.
>
> And rightly so!
>
> What follows is an exchange between an angry Netizen
> (one that, as far as I know, has never been involved
> in the debate before), and a large media outlet:
>
> [The names have been removed to protect the private
> nature of this exchange]
>
> At 12:00 PM 9/4/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> >Hello Everyone,
> >
> >I'm not sure why I've been added here, but I
> >suspect that it is due to my repeated claims
> >of media bias, and my repeated claims of a
> >blackout of the "true" story about ICANN.
> >
> >So, FWIW, here's my two cents:
> >
> >During my two and a half years of active
> >involvement in the Internet Governance debate,
> >I've had the opportunity to work with virtually
> >every news outlet, and over 200 reporters who
> >have covered the debate at one time or another.
> >
> >In many ways, I share [Netizen]'s sense of outrage
> >over the extremely biased coverage that ICANN
> >has received. Not only have the implications
> >of ICANN been widely under-reported, but some
> >publications like News.com, ZiffDavis, and
> >Reuters have been so blatantly biased, that
> >their stories border on fiction.
> >
> >While I am not a subscriber to [Media Outlet],
> >and I have not read any of their recent
> >coverage, historically I have found [Media Outlet]
> >and [Reporter] to be among the *most*
> >balanced in their coverage of these issues.
> >
> >Of course, this being the Internet, [Netizen]'s
> >claims can be easily verified. Unfortunately,
> >the for-fee nature of [Media Outlet] makes this
> >difficult. Perhaps [Reporter] can post those
> >articles that he feels addresses [Netizen]'s
> >concerns.
> >
> >In closing, the ICANN story must be told.
> >And slowly, thanks to input like [Netizen]'s, the
> >story is getting out. Here's a list of current
> >articles that tell the "untold" story, and are
> >finally seeing the light of day:
> > http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_36/b3645101.htm
> > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/30ican.html
>
> > http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue280/item6052.asp
> > http://www.rain.org/~openmind/icann.htm
> > http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5166/1.html
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Jay Fenello
> >President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
> >
> >"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is
> >ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third,
> >it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
> >
> >
> >At 01:46 AM 9/4/99 , [Reporter] wrote:
> >>[Netizen]:
> >>Looking back into the archives, all I can say is that you may be reading
> >>headlines,
> >>and not the text. If you are reading the text, then one of us is having
> >>some trouble
> >>with the English language, and I'll wager I'm not the one.
> >>
> >>Maybe you don't see these specifics in my articles, but you might check out
> >>[Reporter2]'s articles, since once we hired him, I gave him the ICANN
> >>beat.
> >>You're obviously overlooking something because we did cover all these
> >>things.
> >>
> >>You also should note that we will quote anyone who is relevant to the
> >>issue, even if they do not agree with you.
> >>
> >>Maybe your problem with the articles is that we did not bias them in favor
> >>of
> >>Network Solutions, for whom you obviously are an apologist. In fact, we
> >>don't
> >>bias in favor of ICANN or in favor of Network Solutions, or Tom Bliley, or
> >>Esther
> >>Dyson or anyone. We are an objective news source that reports on things
> >>that
> >>happen. You obviously want a [Media Outlet]-style Cook Report, and you're not
> >>going to get that here. Instead, you'll get dispassionate facts. That's
> >>the whole idea
> >>of news.
> >>
> >>Do me a favor and check your facts before making half-baked accusations.
> >>
> >>By the way, for whom in this debate are you carrying water? That might be
> >>a rhetorical
> >>question.
> >>
> >>[Reporter]
> >>
> >>ps - I should point out that I welcome your attack, because it does allow
> >>me to
> >>police my own work and the work of my bureau - after all, you could have
> >>been
> >>right, but after doing my own searching, I know you're not. Don't let that
> >>stop you,
> >>however.
> >>
> >>
> >>[Netizen] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I beg your pardon... I checked your archives.. I saw nothing in detail
> >>>regarding the collusion between ICANN and the DOJ to pressure and
> >>>discredit
> >>>Network Solutions. I saw nothing in detail regarding the congressional
> >>>hearings where Mr. Daniels of Network Solutions, looking back , told the
> >>>truth and the ICANN & the DOC people clearly distorted the facts. This
> >>>distortion by ICANN & the DOC was quickly noticed by several congressman.
> >>>Yet, I find nothing in your archives about the deception clearly
> >>>demonstrated by the ICANN & DOC officials.. Why??????????
> >>>I saw nothing on how ICANN said there would be no more behind closed door
> >>>meetings,, Then closed their doors and gave Network Solutions only one
> >>>seat
> >>>on their board instead of the two they committed to earlier. No matter
> >>>which
> >>>way you paint it, they did not tell the truth.. This is clearly public
> >>>knowledge, but when I read your articles, I see a blind eye focused on
>
> >>>these
> >>>clearly evident happenings.. Network Solutions is an excellent company
> >>>that
> >>>, in the beginning of the net, contracted with the DOC to implement a
> >>>domain
> >>>name system. It is apparent they did an outstanding job.. They risk
> >>>hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and grow one of the best run
> >>>companies on the net. Yet, ICANN thinks, now that they are bringing other
> >>>companies into the domain name space, these companies should not pay for
> >>>that risk, as Network Solution did.. And all under the name of fair
> >>>competition.. I saw nothing in detail in your archives about congressman
> >>>Bliley's findings regarding ICANN's $1 tax on each domain name
> >>>registered...
> >>>That tax, ICANN calls it a user fee, would have went through, if it were
> >>>not
> >>>for congressman Bliley... On that point, this tax would represent over 10
> >>>million dollars per year, which will increase about 10 million per year
> >>>for
> >>>the next ten years.. For what?? There is no added value brought to the
> >>>table
> >>>by ICANN, and anyone knowledgeable on this issue knows that!!!! Why not
> >>>report on that?? ICANN's operation and tactics are quite evident to the
> >>>peop
> >>>le that follow this debate closely.. I just do not see that reported in
> >>>your
> >>>articles... Why??? Today, there are businesses that are contributing large
> >>>sums of money to cover ICANN's enormous expenses they have incurred over
> >>>the
> >>>past few months. Why??? I'll tell you why. Those same companies may, at a
> >>>some later date, have their people on ICANN's board.. All bought by
> >>>money!!!! Do you not see a problem here ???????? Do you not deem this to
> >>>be
> >>>news worthy???Cisco and Sun Microsystems having their people influencing
> >>>the
> >>>domain name space. They bring no value to the the table,, ONLY MONEY !!!!
> >>>Why not report on this???
> >>>
> >>>I only ask you to report fairly and truthfully. There are two sides here.
> >>>I
> >>>only read about ICANN's side from your articles. Network Solution is the
> >>>only one in this whole mess that has demonstrated intregity throughout.
> >>>Yet,
> >>>when I read your articles, they are the ones that are always getting the
> >>>negative one-sided reports..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank You..
> >>>
> >>>[Netizen]
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>>> [Netizen] - thanks for writing. If you check our archives, you'll notice that
> >>>> we've reported -- exhaustively --
> >>>> every single side of the ICANN debate, possibly more fairly than most
> >>>> other news organizations.
> >>>> [Reporter]
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Thanks for reading...
> >>>> >
> >>>> >[Netizen]
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480
> -----------------------------------------------
> What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>
> "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is
> ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third,
> it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
