Lawrence Lessig wrote:
>
> We are not connecting, and I am sorry about that.
We are not agreeing. I don't know what you mean by "connecting".
> You are seething with
> anger.
I am certainly not "seething with anger" (nothing I wrote manifests
it), so it must be you, yourself, who is. The fact that someone
dares oppose you with superior arguments and better logic angers
you. You can't answer the logic (for example your indifference to
democratic process when you did not go to the IFWP membership for
decisions regarding it, a fact which you have yourself admitted, not
realizing the full implications of what you wrote). Angry because
you have been bettered in the debate, you transfer that anger to (or
"project it on", as the psychologists say) me.
If this is the case (and it seems to be the only possible
deduction), it's a sign that, in spite of your education and wisdom,
you may not be such a sophisticated intellect after all. Projecting
one's emotions, when they are disagreeable, onto others is a sure
sign of a lack of self-knowledge and, worse, an inability to
participate in reasonable dialogue. I'm sorry to see this in you,
but frankly I am not so very surprised. Our institutions of higher
learning, which have formed you, take in people who have been
protected from the experiences of life that provide maturity,
protect them further, and produce individuals who, while learned,
are intellectually and emotionally immature. This seems to be what
has occurred in your case, judging from your attempt to transfer
your unacceptable emotional responses to me.
It must be added, in all fairness, that an additional motive for
doing what you have to done is to avoid accepting unfavorable
personal judgments. No doubt your pride will not let you accept
that, in a practical test of your principles, you acted without
regard for them, and anger is a useful refuge to you.
> I'm sure that accounts for much of what is below, both the errors and
> the unfairness.
There are neither errors nor unfairness in what I have written. It
is the truth, which you are unable to face.
> There is, however, limited bandwidth in a debate that I believe is crucial:
> ICANN's future.
ICANN's future is a given. No debate about it will have the
slightest consequence, just as you, if you really were to oppose the
Board, will have no consequence on it.
> That debate, in my view, is about whether an organization
> will be captured by narrow special interests
Here again is the danger that you and your candidacy pose: you
pretend that ICANN is not a captured organization, or rather one
which was created by and for special interests. You say "will",
"could", "might" instead of "is". Like most lawyers, you use words
to distract from the truth. You whitewash ICANN by saying "will it
become X", and so trick people into believeing that ICANN is not
already X.
> whether it will become the IP
> police
Here it is again: Will it? Then it hasn't already. You are another,
yet more insidious ICANN apologist and supporter, one who will
provide the lies for the re-writing of history.
> whether it will jettison the "at-large" membership structure
The bylaws for doing just that have already been passed, and the
entire At-large membership adherence process, as well as the current
election process, have been rigged from the start, as everyone
knows. But perhaps you will catch a few unsuspecting newbies in the
hook of your unsound and dishonest statements.
> whether it will continue to concentrate power so as to increase its
> own.
You say that this is an open question, susceptible to either a "yes"
or "no" reply? I say that it is not, and that you are a liar or a
fool.
> That debate is not, in my view, about whether you respect a bunch of law
> professors, or who did what in the fall of 1998.
This exchange of emails has never been about those two things. It
has been about whether or not Larry Lessig is qualified to represent
the American At-large Internet users.
> I jumped into "what the
> debate is not" because I viewed what you have said as unfair and inaccurate.
> In particular, it was inaccurate about what I did when I attempted to get
> IANA and NSI to sit down to a meeting to acknowledge and accept the
> extraordinary work of the IFWP.
If you did do that, we owe you thanks, just as we owe you
condemnation for helping to obliterate the work of the IFWP when
IANA and NSI would not acknowledge and accept it.
> You have stated, falsely and recklessly, that Berkman (and because I was the
> negotiator, that means I) stopped the final meeting.
Nothing false or reckless about it. The Berkman announced that it
had called off the meeting of the IFWP, which after all had been
announced as under the organizational aegis of the Berkman Center.
> rather than continue
> here this (in my view) counter productive dialog, I make this challenge to
> you, Michael:
This challenge is absurd, and such absurdity isn't worthy of you,
Mr. Lessig.
> (1) You and I will agree to the selection of a professional arbitrator (you
> pick 5, I will select one from that 5).
To play along for a moment with your absurdity, where would I find
five people who both had the facts and were sufficiently experienced
and intelligent politically to construe them properly? I doubt there
are five in all of cyberspace, and those five are probably the
people who have responded to you here.
And then, why would I allow you to choose from among the five? Do
you normally play these sorts of tricks? Is that what your lawyer
training has taught you?
> (2) That arbitrator will be charged with the task of determining whether the
> claims you have made about my involvement in the final IFWP meeting are
> true.
The only arbitrators whose opinion I can accept have already decided
that issue, here on this list.
> (3) I will give that arbitrator complete access to all my email and
> correspondence; I will ask the same of my colleagues.
All your email and correspondence? So what? What can that possibly
prove? The necessary conclusions aren't derivable from the email and
correspondence of Larry Lessig and the Berkman Center, but from the
facts and events as they transpired.
> (4) If the arbitrator concludes that your assertions about my involvement in
> this process are true, then I will: (a) pay the cost of the arbitration, (b)
> donate $10,000 to the charity of your choice, (c) resign any ICANN related
> positions I may at the time have.
>
> (5) If the arbitrator concludes that your assertions about my involvement in
> the process are not true, then you will pay the costs of the arbitration.
>
> (6) If the arbitrator cannot resolve the matter one way or the other, then
> we will split the costs of the arbitration. "Costs of the arbitration" means
> the costs of the arbitrator and her or his incidental costs.
Ridiculous. The decisions of an arbitrator would solve nothing and
don't interest me, even if a responsible one could be found, which I
seriously doubt. You are caught up in pseudo-legal processes which
serve only to confuse and obscure the real issues, just as the UDRP
has done. This call of yours for arbitration between you and me
serves as a further proof of your incapacity to responsibly serve as
a representative of the interests of an At-large membership. The
struggle between corporate America and its victims will eventually
be decided, not by arbitration, but by naked power and
confrontation, as such struggles always have been.
> I am not a wealthy man, Michael, believing as I do that academics who do
> policy should not be compensated for their policy advocacy.
I suspect that, in comparison to the people I know, you are quite
wealthy.
> But where I grew
> up, one's word was sacred
Such as the word of the Berkman Center that it would provide a
physical forum for the IFWP?
> and one was not so careless with other peoples'
> word.
No idea what you are referring to here. Are you trying to imply that
I have been careless with your word? Isn't it you who have been
careless with your, when you gave it to the IFWP?
> I will no longer debate what happened in 1998 in the context of the
> ICANN election.
You have not yet debated it. You have done nothing but try to change
the subject since I posted my first email to you last week.
> Again, there are other, more important issues that my time
> will be devoted to.
Like joining and giving further legitimacy to the pack of gangsters
who call themselves ICANN.
> But if you want to persist in the false claims you spew onto the net, then
> put your money where your mouth is.
An ugly and stupid thing for yopu to write. I don't equate money
with what I think, write, and say. I suggest that this amounts to a
freudian slip on your part.
> You at least have the no doubt many
> members of the ICIIU to back up any costs you might incur.
Surely you know that the ICIIU is not a membership orgtanization and
that it has virtually no money. Is this sarcasm, then? Are you aping
the slander attacks on me and the ICIIU initiated by Cerf & Co.? If
so, how low can you sink?
Michael Sondow
=================================================================
"In Germany, they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak
up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,
but by that time there was no one left to speak up."
--- Martin Niemoller, Dachau, 1945
=================================================================
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel(718)846-7482 Fax(603)754-8927
=================================================================
