Re: [ga] At-Large

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> On 06:49 05/07/02, Ray Fassett said:
> >Kristy Mckee writes:
> >"Too bad ICANN does not believe every citizen deserves the right to vote."
>
> I am afraid we serve Joe Sims interests here. He is genuinely frustrated by
> the lack of some basic understandings by his fellow countrymen, but this is
> just the dressing.

  How true...

>
>
> 1. Kristy: democracy must not be confused with votes.

  Not with "Votes" not, but a basic precept in any democratic
structure is the right to vote as a voter.  The distinction here
is significant and fundamental, Jefsey...

> You have democracy by
> representation and democracy by delegation.

  No, there is not such thing as a democracy by delegation without
those delegated being determined by a vote of the stakeholders/users
in this case, or the case with ICANN...

> In Athens only 500 people
> voted.

  ICANN is not a Greek organization, but may have an impact on Greek
stakeholders.  ICANN is a California non profit corp. under us law
governed by the White Paper and the MoU.  As such, your comparison
to whom voted in Athens is of no viable or comparative consequence.

> In the USA only citizens of age can vote. Ages of vote varies among
> countries.

  Indeed right here Jefsey.  In the USA the age restriction is that you
must be 18 years or older to vote in National elections.  However
there is no age restriction to vote a persons shares in a corp. or
as a member of an non profit corp.  Hence making such an argument
again not valid to that extent.

> Number of candidates and ways of voting vary. 99,99% for the
> single candidate is not what I call democracy. In Bucharest every Director
> was allowed to vote ....

  Yes, however not every or even the majority of Directors was elected
to those director positions as required in the White Paper and the MoU.
Ergo, their votes cannot and do not represent anyone except themselves
alone...  The only two exceptions are Karl and Andy...

>
>
> 2. Ray: your reaction is a pure demonstration of what Joe says. I am sorry,
> I do respect and share most of the ideas of the US democracy which fit well
> the needs of a federated nation with a rather simple common law practice
> and a short legal history.
>
> >So, I guess we are supposed to just shut up instead of going on and on
> >with our "head-in-the-sand attitude [that] is unfortunately quite common
> >among ICANN's American critics" (Joe Sims).
>
> I will certainly not take the USA as a model for democracy and for loyal
> commercial practices because I will take no one: every country culture has
> con and pros and should work for improvement and for adaptation to the real
> world. To understand and accept that, as Joe and Esther do, is what many
> call civilization. But civilization also comes with mutual respect: when
> some are more civilized than others, many call it machiavellism

  Machiavellism, as you seem to espouse that Joe and Esther follow
here is in no way actually what the contractual obligations that the
ICANN BoD and staff has to the stakeholders/users in accordance
with the White Paper and the MoU.  Ergo yet again this is not
really and argument of any validity.

>
>
> We have to accept that the ICANN is not to manage the Internet but to
> manage us.

  No we do not have to accept this as you state it here.  Rather we
as stakeholders/users choose whom represents us to manage the
internet (DNS, Protocols, and IP addressing/numbering).

> Its true role is to protect the "stakeholders" from the market
> leading forces which are seen as competition or dangers fo the network
> stability (competition, politics, lobbies, NGOs, experts, activists,
> foreign govs, techies, consumer organizations, etc.). Statu quo is the key
> word - the DNS never changed in 18 years since we delegated it under the
> State Department, ITU and foreign Govs (monopolies of the time) approval.

  The DNS has changed dramatically Jefsey.  So it is difficult to impossible
to see you point here.

>
>
> I can only admire Joe's memo. The vote of the BoD he is so proud of is a
> master piece of influence over the last six months.

  You and Joe may admire it.  Most stakeholders/users that are now
and have been stating that the direction of ICANN is flawed to the point
of needing and a calling for a rebid of the ICANN Contracts with
DOC/NTIA.

> I would be really glad
> to know the truth about Karl's not showing up. Worked out? Luck?

  Karl already on this very forum stated his reasons for not being present
in Bucharest.  Perhaps you missed his post on that.  (See DNSO GA
Archives for further information).

>  Now what
> is (by chance or by intent?) the effect of his memo? Joe will be able to
> produce it to show that Gillmore's testimony about Vint is part of a
> personal feud of Gillmore against Joe, dating from the Postel's days.

  Vint is a member of the Worldcom Board that has been accused
and involved in massive fraud.  Ergo, at this and even some time previously,
juncture, anything Vint has said should be viewed with some very great
amount of skepticism...

> That
> it is rooted in a loony proposition of Gillmore rightfully refused by Joe.
> Joe did not quote anything real, many texts with references where quoted in
> response, but the harm was done. It might be the same in front of a Court.

  Good point here.  I don't think that Joe want's to attempt the same
gambit in a court room.  I may be wrong on that though given his
outlandish statements of the past 4-5 months...

>
>
> I am very interested also to learn that JDRP is not looking for long term
> customers. Also that a single individual with no legal case, being helped
> by one lawyer (and may be one or two assistants) in a USG support matter,
> may get a 1 million dollar bill. If JDRP cancelled the bill either JDRP is
> in the charity business and should get tax deductions, either it was
> favoritism and in some way Jon Postel, or IANA, should be taxed on the
> advantages they obtained, either it is a fantasy say which may cost a lot
> to JDRP as other clients may ask for the same treatment, or it was a pure
> investment that would not pay back and Joe's leaving is to cut on JDRP's
> losses. I am interested in knowing who Joe is going to replace the ICANN
> with? and what about Louis?
>
> I can also only admire the way the Blueprint is worded in order to close
> the mouth and ambitions of the @large and of EEC and others. The @large
> trap was triggered first. The use of Vittorio was brillant, but Vittorio is
> a smart and honnest fellow, so let watch what happens. The GAC's trap was
> the usual way (last minute document saying that this will not happen
> again). The EEC trap is a very good one. It will be triggered probably this
> summer. There are some other traps, some we see, some we do not see yet.
> Joe and some others are far better at managing human networks ties than
> Internet links :-)

  All of these traps were seen as very great possibilities in '98 and were
voluminously discussed publicly than on the old Domain-Policy
list...

>
>
> Since, I am only interested in servicing the Internet Participants we are
> on planets apart..
> jfc

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