Re: [ga] Joe Sims to Politech re: Gilmore interview

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Leah and all assembly members,

  I am in agreement personally with your brief, but to the point analysis
given below.  Yes, Joe Sims, should be very ashamed as should the
ICANN BoD and staff in still employing him as "Outside Council"...

  But my main interest here in posting this to the GA and the
At-Large list was to get others views and hopefully share them
with the DOC/NTIA so as to keep everyone informed as well
as for the GAC and the NTIA to have a more honest and accurate
broad analysis...

L. Gallegos wrote:

> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03717.html
>
> What I find very interesting, aside from the totally defensive tone of Mr. Sims'
> tirade, is that most of the accounts that I have heard from those who participated
> in that early history tend to corroborate Gilmore's version.
>
> "...the Board is not divided at all; the vast majority of its votes result in a
> larger than two-thirds majority..."
>
> In addition, his comments regarding the board leave out that individuals are
> represented by a serious minority of the board and that those selected by the
> DNSO are representatative of the consituencies rather than individuals, who have
> no consituency, AND that the most influential of the board members are
> squatters who have never been elected at all and do not even closely represent
> individuals' views. And this is a supposedly "non-profit, public benefit
> corporation" that works with "transparency" and from "the bottom up."  Really.
>
>   Granted, ICANN is not making a profit, but it is paying outrageous fees to
> some who are.  Hmmm..... pro bono and billing at cost... what does that mean?
> Cost at what rate, exactly?  Let's see those "at cost" figures from the Jones Day
> side of things.
>
> Joe made a lot of cracks and levied insults, but did not provide anything
> substantive.  His defensiveness is to be expected, IMO.  He is, after all, being
> attacked by many.
>
> It does not change the facts, however.  From every account I have heard and
> read from those present at meetings and those who knew and worked with Jon
> Postel, he was, indeed, threatened and did, indeed, cave in to those who were
> determined to place the cartel in power.  Then he died tragically.   This was a
> man who was human, after all, and did his level best.  He was rather idealistic -
> a very good thing, IMO, and saw that government control over the ccTLDs was
> not the best idea for users.  And that is just one area where he was right.
> Gilmore is also correct in saying that Jon Postel wanted to see hundreds of
> TLDs opened to the public and put out a call for those who wished to operate
> them.  It's really a horrible shame that he passed away.  There would probably
> not have been a manufactured shortage of domains because .com would have
> been one of many available TLDs in the USG root. He did want to see 150 added
> quickly and more each year.
>
> After Jon died, ICANN was a done deal with the board entrenched, a set of
> bylaws that would give the board license to change them at willc to grab power
> over the public use of the USG root and hand out monopolies in any future TLDs
> it might deign to allow to exist.  All this, without any meaningful voice of the vast
> majority of internet users, who are, after all, the most important ones - or
> certainly should be.
>
> "This point simply reveals Gilmore's lack of understanding of the law
> business...."
> I thought it was a profession.  Hmmm....  What, exactly was the position of
> the law firm prior to ICANN in terms of income and notariety?  How much
> has it grown since becoming ICANN's retained legal firm?
>
> "...Gilmore and his more personally offensive colleagues. ..."
> Might Gilmore and his colleagues feel the same about Joe Sims and his
> colleagues?
>
> Now let's see. Karl's lawsuit is over the fact that a director should have
> unfettered access to all the corporation's records.  He should not have to sign
> something that restricts his duties and rights as a director and he should not
> have to ask the board's permission to have that access.  On many boards, there
> have been directors in collusion who would seek to prevent another director from
> accessing certain records - could be damaging to certain persons and entities.
> That is one reason why any board member has the duty and right to inspect
> those records in full and without signing for permission to do so.  Requiring his
> signature on that questionable document is just what is to be avoided.
> Distribution of confidential material is covered under law, so why should the
> board be involved in granting permission with that caveat?  If Karl were to break
> the law, he would be personally liable for it, as would any other board member
> who did the same.  Material that is not confidential (personnel, legal) should be
> open to inspection anyway. Every dime spent and every dime of income to the
> corporation should be public information.  Isn't it interesting that Jamie Love
> asked in Bucharest how much was being paid to Jones Day to defend against
> karl and was refused an answer?  Why the secrecy?
>
> Gilmore was not off the mark in his interview, IMO.  Joe Sims is.  Shame on you.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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