[ga] your comments

["Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>]

Why I bother to react to your nonsense is a mystery to me; must be some
deep psychological thing.  But I'll take one last (I promise!) try:

1.  Lots of people have spent lots of time reacting to Lynn's paper.
Indeed, it is absolutely clear that the vast majority of people involved in
the ICANN process agreed with its diagnosis of problems almost entirely,
while there was lots more debate and disagreement on the prescription for
solutions.  Where we got relatively little reaction was from the byfields
and similar professional ICANN critics, who have lots of time to carp and
either an unwillingness or an inability to contribute in any productive way
to the debate.
2.  You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still facts.
If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
have a good case for doing something different.  But since it has not had
either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your view
of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.
3.  If you have any positive goals, I would be happy to hear of them.  I
have seen no evidence to date.


Joe Sims



--
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