[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] You Are Abusing Our Intelligence

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 20:01 08/12/01, Mike Roberts said:
>Eric ? Jefsey ?

Difficult to understand the matter you address when responding the same 
text to two persons with different positions?

>Stop this nonsense.

Dear Mike, these emotionals of yours are not something I will continue to 
accept for a long. I am very patient and I try to be a good christian, but 
I also know my temper and the state of my coronaries. I would hate to put 
you on trash-filter - I only have one person on it for similar reasons. And 
I do regret it because his - as yours - posts are usually of great 
interest. Netiquette is usually a way to support positive debateq and 
people health. This kind of phrase is not positive.

Let come back to the matter.

I am afraid you totally missed the issue and the intent. You react as a 
President offering a public and therefore immediately controverted 
response. My intent is precisely to stop that kind of public reporting. The 
President is to report to the BoD, not to the GA or to the ALSC or to the 
world. The BoD is to report to those who elected it.

Here we have a very grave case where a Director reports to his electors (NA 
@large) that he is unable to report because of the Staff attitude. Both as 
a general ICANN user as every of us and as an @large with the duties of 
Chair of a small @large incorporated association, I certainly dislike this 
as much as you.

My position and my letter are that this kind of debate - and therefore 
Stuart's reponse and yours - are enough out of common sense by their 
destinees to show a real problem. Like if Stuart and you were trying to use 
us (GA, @large, public, media, Govs) to influence the BoD Members. Or as if 
the BoD Chair was vacant.

I want that feeling łany shares of a permanent Staff Pronunciamento - 
maring the whole ICANN action - to be terminated. Period.

This can only be achieved by a clarification not from Stuart and you but by 
the Chair stating in his own way what the situation is and in having 
Director Karl Auerbach statisfied, motioned a blame by the BoD or intenting 
a court action.

The questions are clear:
- who is the ICANN boss? You or Vint?
- who controls it: the DoC, the BoD or the Staff and you?
- what is the purpose of the @large: to share in the ICANN control or to 
serve as an alibi?
- what is the purpose of the DNSO: to adore ICP-3 or to conduct the DNS 
policy?
- what is the purpose of the ICANN? to serve Verisign interests or to 
foster equal treatment to all through competition?
- what is the ICANN consensus? professionaly secret yet network amateurish 
meetings decisions or international community real agreement?
etc... everyone knows them.

You see, dear Mike, no one question your skills and experience. No one 
question that in the situation you were you tried your best. No one 
question your professionnal approach of many problems. No one question your 
fund raiser sucesses. And Eric Dieker's recent post shows that and the way 
he praises you for all this. There is no witch hunt because you, Stuart, 
nor any other are no witch - at least I do hope so.

But I always made clear that I feel  your vision of the network is 
inadequate, the situation you tackled is twisted, your professionalism is 
not the one the ICANN required, begging funds to manage the world most 
important infrastructure while permiting some to make unjustified and 
important profits is absurd. I see that this approach has led to a blocking 
situation which is not only documented by your conflict with Director 
Auerbach. This being said, your responses are to him, not to Eric and 
certainly not to me.

Keep cool. We both want the ICANN to succeed. But the ICANN I look for is 
the IANA functions because I know from experience that it works and 
satisifies the world. Yours is some kind of a Yankee Capitalistic Crusader. 
I see from due observation that it will not work and that it will be a 
disservice to your country and to the world. But I am no fool enough to 
think I am 50% right and you are 100% wrong. So let be grown boys and discuss.


Things like what you say below are pure "keyboard clickings". I feel I read 
Joe Sims. It is like responding "the clouds are made of water vapor" when 
someone asks if it is rainy.

>There is a published budget for ICANN that includes the budget for the At 
>Large study.  The CEO reports to the Board regularly on budget 
>accomplishment and that report is rendered and archived publicly. Not only 
>is there no malfeasance, but the fiscal conservatism of the committee 
>allowed the Board to extend its term to March 2002 without having to find 
>additional funds.
>
>There is a Finance Committee of the Board that reviews budget and 
>financial data provided by management and makes reports to the full Board 
>that are also presented and archived publicly.
>
>There is an Audit Committee of the Board that reviews all accounting and 
>financial management policies of the corporation and makes reports to the 
>full Board that are presented and archived publicly.
>
>There is an external audit firm that annually reviews the corporation's 
>financial results and renders an opinion on them based on generally 
>accepted accounting principles for non-profit organizations.  The opinion 
>and accompanying financial statements are posted on ICANN's website.  The 
>lead partner of the audit firm has an annual closed door session with the 
>non-management Directors of the Audit Committee during which any 
>deficiencies in the corporation's financial systems and financial 
>management are discussed and corrective action required, if any, is adopted.
>
>The corporation renders annual financial reports to the State of 
>California and to the Internal Revenue Service, both of which have 
>oversight and investigative powers in the event of any discrepancies. None 
>of ICANN's reports to these agencies has triggered an oversight action.

I fully acknowledge that Joe Sims and Louis Tonton are professionnals. Then?

>You and others are conducting a witch hunt for which there is no witch.

Since you re-sent your mail to me , I may suppose that the 'you' is me.

Dear Mike, don't try to be my witch. You are only a brillant man who tried 
to brillantly succeed an impossible mission creep under unreasonable 
pressures and over inadequate premises.

>It's past time to move on to topics that actually have some promise of 
>assisting the DNS community in its work.

I am happy that you eventually say things like that after so many years. 
But why, since you know you hate my vision of assisting the DNS community 
which is to free the DNS from the ICANN gTLD greed and grip. In restoring 
the initial international network liberty we built and operated for years 
in the respect of the networks participants system architecture and of 
their gobal vision of their own virtual private networks. You know I will 
not change after 24 years now. Are you OK with that or this is pure rethoric?

My only target is that everyone may rest in peace, security and stability. 
And you and me may have a drink together over the accomplished task.

Jefsey.












>At 9:36 -0800 12/8/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
>>This message was posted to the GA. I felt it appropriate to repost it here.
>>clearly
>>this problem is going to explode.  In all my young years I have never seen a
>>situation where a refusal to disclose and provide that which one should, did
>>not result in the revelation of serious malfeasance.
>>
>>Here we have the refusal of the ALSC to submit detailed reports of their
>>spending and billing to ICANN.  Why?  How could that be harmful to anyone?
>>
>>Eric
>>
>>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>
>>>  Mr. Cerf, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Younger,
>>>  The quoted letter of Mr. Younger to Mr. Lynn reflects only partly the
>>>  concerns that ICANN Users may have. Our common interest is obviously that
>>>  the ICANN fulfills its missions to the best common interest. Mission creep
>>>  and mission sleep - as per Mr. Diecker's adequate wording - are both the
>>>  primary matters of concern as in every human organization. Also a mani
>>>  pulite spirit is of the essence as in every organization indirectly
>>>  affecting external large budgets and revenues and providing personal or
>>>  professional fames. Concerns about Internet Participants and people is a
>>>  duty as for any international body which mainly translates into
>>>  transparency, equality to all, democratic consensus based spirit and
>>>  obligation not to enlarge the financial, lingual and digital divides. Last
>>>  but not least professionalism is a necessity to make sure that the
>>>  management is consistent, the action is not contested and the image is
>>>  protected and developed.
>>>
>>>  Mr. Younger asks for a review of the Corporation's actions by Mr. Lynn. I
>>>  am afraid Mr. Lynn has already provided publicly such a review in terms I
>>>  personally found shocking and as such a proof of the Mr. Auerbach's
>>>  reclamations at least regarding the Staff's attitude. I questioned that
>>>  evaluation of mine publicly on the GA as I could be wrong: it was 
>>> confirmed.
>>>
>>>  At this stage I suppose no one wants a clash nor to display too many 
>>> things
>>>  in public. So it is time to call on Mr. Vint Cerf. I am a naval 
>>> officer and
>>>  a public right trainee. In my culture the commander bears the full
>>  > responsibility even if he is for nothing in the problem. This has 
>> obviously
>>>  ultimate disadvantages, but from experience it has also immense advantages
>>>  as it gives a full yet controlled authority to treat quickly and 
>>> nicely any
>>>  problem internally, at its root.
>>>
>>>  I must say that I take also that call to Mr. Vint Cerf as a test to know
>>>  who is the real ICANN CO. To my French law and international naval law
>>  > readings Mr. Stuart Lynn is the President or the EXO. I must also say 
>> that
>>  > in both legal cultures of mine denying or imposing constraints to a 
>> Member
>>>  of the Board in accessing information he is entitled to is a delict 
>>> one and
>>>  a military fault in the other that neither a Chair nor a CO has the legal
>>>  ability to cover. Is that different under the US or the local 
>>> Californian law?
>>>
>>>  This matter is highly preoccupaying. I make no mistery that I disagree 
>>> with
>>>  the present policy of the ICANN, structure, strategies and ways of
>>>  management, understanding of the Networks structure. But I never hidden
>>>  either that, if may be I do not understand it in the same way, I fully
>>>  support Mike Roberts word "we the ICANN", though  improvements towards
>>>  agreements. This is by nature what a consensu is about.
>>>
>>>  That a Board Member preoccupated openly by concerns about "democracy" and
>>>  transparency is purposedly made to "sleep" when he wants to investigate on
>>>  the "creep" and on the "mani pulite" aspects is too much "unprofessional".
>>>  This affects the five main priorities I - and probably most of the other
>>>  ICANN Users - assign to the ICANN. This is another reason to call for a
>>>  professional review and an apeasement by the top before it comes to the
>>>  bottom through the media, the courts or the international arena.
>>>
>>>  I suppose that this letter reflects in its own way the thinking of a 
>>> number
>>>  of ICANN Users on this GA and in other fora. It looks and does hope for a
>>>  peaceful settlement. But I am afraid this is the last internal escalation
>>>  we have on the real root of the ICANN.
>>>
>>>  Best regards.
>>>
>>>  Jefsey Morfin
>>>
>>>  PS. I thank those who have already responded to my proposition to 
>>> study the
>>>  incorporation of an ICANN User Association. To be on that project study
>>>  group and bootstrap send me only a mail. I underline that this project 
>>> - as
>>>  it start developing - is in accordance with the spirit of this letter irt
>>>  the ICANN: five identified priorities, an international and real network
>>>  oriented point of view, an active support and cooperation to the mission,
>>>  suggestions to reduce the sleep and a firm opposition to the creep.
>>>
>>>  At 09:16 08/12/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>>>  >Mr. Lynn,
>>>  >
>>>  >My North American At-Large Director, Karl Auerbach, has once more 
>>> posted a
>>>  >series of comments regarding the "absolute right" of a Director to 
>>> inspect
>>>  >and copy corporate documents, a right that he claims you are denying 
>>> to him.
>>>  >When I hear an argument by my representative that insists that this
>>>  >Corporation under your stewardship is engaged in applying its 
>>> procedures and
>>>  >practices inequitably so as to single him out as a particular party for
>>>  >disparate treatment, such actions not being justified by either 
>>> substantial
>>>  >or reasonable cause, I have a legitimate right to be concerned that 
>>> ICANN is
>>>  >in violation of its Bylaws.
>>>  >
>>>  >As Mr. Auerbach's complaints on this subject matter have been set 
>>> forth in a
>>>  >number of fora over the course of several months, and as ICANN's 
>>> failure to
>>>  >resolve this concern continues to cast doubt upon the integrity of our
>>>  >Corporation, this impasse now begins to affect all of 
>>> us.  Accordingly, in
>>>  >the interest of resolving this matter, allow me to request that a 
>>> review of
>>>  >the Corporation's actions with respect to Mr. Auerbach's right of 
>>> inspection
>>>  >be undertaken by the full Board.
>>>  >
>>>  >Please advise if you will honor such request for review.
>>>  >
>>>  >regards,
>>>  >Danny Younger
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >--
>>>  >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>>>  >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>>  >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>  > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>>>  Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>>  ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>>  Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>--

--
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