jay and all,
In a nutshell, you are right, Jay. And the process has been tainted
as a result, leading to complete distrust of that process in which
Joe Simms has been no small contributor.
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 03:02 PM 10/13/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
> >___________________________________________________________________________
> >____
> >
> > 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.
> >___________________________________________________________________________
> >____
> >
> >you understand, I am sure, but simply don't accept, that others (like the
> >USG and what I percieve the vast majority of those in the Internet
> >community that are participating in this process) think that what is being
> >done is fully consistent with, and indeed implements, the White Paper. As
> >for the Green Paper, the White Paper reflected the fact that the vast
> >majority of those that commented on the Green Paper completely rejected its
> >underlying concepts.
>
> That is not correct!
>
> The Green Paper [GP] was the result of an extensive
> U.S. Government sponsored inquiry into the Internet
> Governance question. It was an attempt to resolve
> the dispute between the supporters of the gTLD-MoU
> (another governance proposal), and what Joe likes
> to refer to as the "outliers".
>
> [Note ==> the so-called "outliers" were once a
> *majority* of the IFWP process, as the consensus
> points from that series of four world-wide
> meetings easily confirm.]
>
> When the GP was announced, it received fierce
> opposition from the more Socialisticly inclined
> European power base, the gTLD-MoU supporters,
> and the popular media. It was also tied to the
> redirection of the Root Servers by Jon Postel,
> in what many considered to be a warning to the
> U.S. Government.
>
> So, the U.S. backed down to the White Paper.
>
> Instead of deciding the divisive issues, the
> White Paper laid out a framework for self
> governance, with the stated intention that
> this self governance would fairly decide
> these issues.
>
> Now, according to Joe Sims, we can see that
> the backers of ICANN believe that the White
> Paper was a victory for the gTLD-MoU forces.
> Consequently, they have pursued an agenda to
> implement the gTLD-MoU, without any regard
> to other community input.
>
> And this, in a nutshell, is what's wrong
> with ICANN.
>
> Jay.
>
> >So while I understand that you don't like the way
> >this has proceeded, my perception is that is a very definite minority view,
> >and thus following it would be inconsistent with an attempt to seek
> >consensus (which by definition does not allow a distinct minority view to
> >frustrate the predominant view of the group). This leaves us with an
> >agreement to disagree, and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, and
> >free to articulate it. I am not required, however, to accept it.
> >
> >
> >
> > (Embedded
> > image moved "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > to file: 10/13/99 01:15 PM
> > pic27850.pcx)
> >
> >
> >
> >Extension:
> >
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
> >Subject: Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Or to say it another way, we want democracy but only if the vote is
> >limited
> > >to us. We want to use the rhetoric of democracy to advance our cause, but
> > >we certainly do not really want it because our influence would be diluted.
> >
> >Thats rediculous. Who would want that? We really want is an arrogant
> >board picked in secret that meets in secret but let compnaies organize
> >and vote but who disallow any individual participation and who marginalize
> >any opposition and make up anything they want and claim there's consensus
> >for
> >it. Yeah, thats's the ticket.
> >
> >We're not asking for utopia, Joe. We're just ask that you do what
> >the white paper says you should do. And THAT'S a compromise position
> >that's being held out to you, the white paper was gutted badly by
> >concessions IRA made. What we really want is the green paper
> >but are willing to compromise. But that is our line in the sand.
> >
> >
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >"I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess
> >I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that
> >way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining
> >has a touch of grey" - JG.
> >
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
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
