[ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com>]

Hi Siegfried,

I hate to say it, but you were warned ...


On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
>My reply is that you are ignoring 
>thousands of years of history, about
>how people and organizations consolidate
>power, and what happens after they do.
>
>Your belief that your technical comrades
>can keep ICANN under control is probably
>where we disagree the most.  ICANN is a
>political creature, one that makes deals
>along the way to support its ever increasing
>agenda.  
>
>While the technocracy is strong and unified, 
>you will be catered to by the powers within 
>ICANN, so that pressure can be brought to 
>bear on those targeted by ICANN.  Initially, 
>this will be NSI, then the ccTLDs, then the
>RIRs.  Finally it *will* be the technocracy
>itself.
>
>It is a classic progression whereby ICANN
>uses a divide and conquer approach to assume
>total control.
>
>If you doubt this, then why did Dave Farber
>suddenly switch from an ICANN supporter to an
>ICANN critic?  I suspect that, once his support 
>was no longer needed and his input was no longer 
>desired, he realized that he'd been used.
>
>Welcome to your future . . .
>
>Jay.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net> 
To: <vcerf@mci.net>; <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>; <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; 
<karl@CaveBear.com>; <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>; <phil.davidson@bt.com>; 
<f.fitzsimmons@att.net>; <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>; 
<mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>; <hans@icann.org>; 
<shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>; <andy@ccc.de>; <junsec@wide.ad.jp>; 
<quaynor@ghana.com>; <roberts@icann.org>; <helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de>; 
<linda@icann.org> 
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org>; <core@corenic.org> 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:23 AM 
Subject: Board descisions

 > Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, 
 > 
 > these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way 
 > ICANN's board is acting. 
 > 
 > as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the 
 > very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you. 
 > 
 > It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions 
 > are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from 
 > staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent 
 > bodies. 
 > Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that 
 > on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing 
 > matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ? 
 > Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very 
 > old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building. 
 > 
 > Let me give you some examples: 
 > 
 > 1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way 
 > how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!) 
 > times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote 
 > (change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the 
 > board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could 
 > have helped. 
 > 
 > 2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With 
 > all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you 
 > really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as 
 > domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national 
 > ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the 
 > process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about 
 > the practicably : making money is more important. Should have 
 > been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing 
 > is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side 
 > supports VeriSign's activities. 
 > 
 > last not least 
 > 3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to 
 > believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract. 
 > The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole 
 > construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we 
 > seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that 
 > process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do. 
 > I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to 
 > NC and DNSO... 
 > 
 > I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas 
 > such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic 
 > way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but 
 > remember an head without an body is not really what you want. 
 > 
 > Elected members should be responsible to those which elected 
 > them, but not only at election time. 
 > 
 > Siegfried Langenbach 
 > joker.com 


+++

Jay Fenello
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com  678-585-9765
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
------------------------------------------------
"The Internet is about consensus, not truth.  
Never mistake truth for consensus." - Brian Reid

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html