From the Harvard Law class list:
(part of the public record)
>From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:23:52 -0400
>Subject: Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>____
>
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
>others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>your system. Thank you.
>___________________________________________________________________________
>____
>
>Here is another good example of why it is such a waste of time to even try
>to have an intelligent discussion on lists such as these. Ellen now wants
>to parse each word in my post, much like an old Soviet Kremlinologist, to
>detect the hidden meaning, or even better, to find the smoking gun that
>will finally prove to the world what she knows is the delivered truth.
>It's all so pointless, except to those that apparently have too much time
>on their hands.
>
>Ellen asserts as facts things she is not in a position to know, and not
>surprisingly, she is dead wrong. She says that a handful of insiders
>formed ICANN; in fact, it was the result of contributions of hundreds of
>individuals and organizations debating, drafting, commenting and changing
>-- all very publicly. Unlike Ellen, I know the facts, because I was there,
>but really, Ellen knows them too, because she saw the consultation, the
>repeated drafts, the numerous conversations both at IPWP meetings and
>elsewhere; she just doesn't like the fact that her views were not accepted.
>Ellen's view is, because the positions of her and those minority of
>participants who agree with her are the only true way, that a result that
>does not accept this religion is necessarily the result of some cabal of
>insiders, and thus illegitimate. In fact, her views on both process and
>result were not majority -- or even significant minority -- views; if they
>had been, they would have been recognized and adopted as the vehicle
>representing consensus. They were not, because they did not, but bad ideas
>do not die simply because they are rejected, as we can tell from this list
>and the numerous others that are steadily drenched with this same tired
>story.
>
>I will also point out that it is not the "Internet engineers, computer
>scientists and infrastructure providers" who Ellen says we have hijacked
>the Internet from that are complaining, but generally outliers like Ellen,
>who fits none of those categories to my knowledge. Of course, we can find
>an engineer or two, like Karl, but in general, the old-line Internet people
>that Ellen professes to be so concerned about are the strongest supporters
>of ICANN. And the "DNS-clueless professionals" she is so dismissive of
>have in fact been the critical glue in getting ICANN born and started
>walking; to see how well Ellen's solution of relying solely on those who
>have been fighting over these issues to midwife ICANN into a stable
>existence would have worked over these last 10 months, one need only look
>at the DNSO NC, which has yet to mature into a functioning body (although
>it is making some strides recently).
>
>The point here is that Ellen and her friends argued their case, it did not
>recieve sufficient support, and the consensus formed around a different
>view. But since Ellen and her compatriots do not accept consensus if it
>does not describe their favored position, they continue to fight a silly
>rear guard action, while the rest of the world is moving ahead. It is hard
>to see how continued discussion about this is of value to anyone, so its
>time to stop, and I intend to do so, whether Ellen likes it or not.
>
>
>
> (Embedded
> image moved Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> to file: 10/09/99 01:27 PM
> pic28005.pcx)
>
>
>
>Extension:
>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
>Subject: Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
>
>
>
>
>Two concepts have appeared in the recent comments of Joe Sims that believe
>we have not seen heretofore. I find both a bit worrisome.
>
>He wrote," What the founders of ICANN have
> >tried to do is to promote a balance in both the governance of and the
> >inputs into ICANN of all the interests identified in my last post."
>
>
>Hmmm...The "founders of ICANN". Those who have followed the evolution of
>this transfer of administrative functions to the private sector, understand
>the U.S.Government White Paper of June 5, 1998 to be a framework for this
>process (see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm).
>
>
>It said the following:
>
>"The policy that follows does not propose a monolithic structure for
>Internet governance. We doubt that the Internet should be governed by one
>plan or one body or even by a series of plans and bodies. Rather, we seek a
>stable process to address the narrow issues of management and
>administration of Internet names and numbers on an ongoing basis,
>
>"As set out below, the U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by
>entering into agreement with, and to seek international support for, a new,
>not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders
>to
>administer policy for the Internet name and address system."
>
>[snip]
>
>"In order to facilitate the needed coordination, Internet stakeholders are
>invited to work together to form a new, private, not-for-profit corporation
>to manage DNS functions."
>
>[snip]
>"Incorporation. We anticipate that the new corporation's organizers will
>include representatives of regional Internet number registries, Internet
>engineers and computer scientists, domain name registries, domain name
>registrars, commercial and noncommercial users, Internet service providers,
>international trademark holders and Internet experts highly respected
>throughout the international Internet community. These incorporators should
>include substantial representation from around the world. "
>
>
>The reason that ICANN has been flogged with criticism since its inception
>is because its bylaws and interim board members were, in fact, iterated and
>chosen by a handful of insiders. While hundreds of people participated in
>meetings around the world for the IFWP <see
>http://www.domainhandbook.com/ifwp.html>, at the end of the day, the bylaws
>iterations were drafted by IANA, the names suggested for the interim board
>by the public, by NSI and by others were ignored, and the policies we are
>now being asked to live with as registrants, registrars and ISPs were
>promulgated by a hand-picked group of people mostly unknown to these
>discussions. They are the "founders of ICANN", not the broader community
>of Internet stakeholders who were promised a voice.
>
>The other comment I find worrisome is: "The notion that the management of
>what may be the most important device for future global communication and
>commerce
>would be turned over to a global plebiscite may appeal to Karl, but it has
>zero support from any of the other groups that influence USG policy. As
>a
>result, it is and was always a non-starter. . . . "
>
>I respond that the notion that the management of what may be the most
>important device for future global communication and commerce would be
>turned over to an unaccountable, unelected, hand-picked group of
>DNS-clueless professionals should have been a non-starter. It has been an
>affront to the Internet engineers, computer scientists, and infrastructure
>providers who make this Internet function. It is an affront to the domain
>name registrants who find value in the communication potential of the
>Internet but see their interests being eroded and subsumed by the
>well-organized and well-funded trademark and commercial participants. I
>worry for the Internet my young son will experience when he is an adult.
>
>Mr. Sims would like this discussion to be put to bed, but the concern about
>ICANN keeps biting back because the IFWP (International Forum on the White
>Paper) never had proper closure, because people never had a voice in the
>selection of the current board, because consensus statements (e.g., that
>there should be no Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy) have gone ignored,
>and because nearly a year after ICANN incorporated, it has yet to establish
>its membership, which ought to have been its FIRST priority. If the
>process was flawed from its inception, then everything that results is
>likewise tainted. At the end of the day, the message appears to be: those
>who developed the Internet and keep it functioning and the individuals who
>fuel its growth are not to be trusted with choosing how it will be
>administered and by whom.
>
>
>...........................................................................
>.
>Ellen Rony ____ The Domain Name
>Handbook
>Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com
>+1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN
>0879305150
>Tiburon, CA W W
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
>...........................................................................
>.
>
>
>
