[ga] Re[2]: ICANN at large board elections and the IDNO

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 08, 1999, 2:29:13 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@BRANDENBURG.COM> wrote:

> At 10:13 AM 8/8/99 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>> >ALMOST 150 members WORLDWIDE speak for the internet users of the world
>>>But your CORE does?
>>There is one basic matter regarding CORE that seems
>>essential - who are its members?  The official CORE

> There is one basic matter regarding your own contribution to these
> discussions that seems essential, namely the amount of money you get paid,
> when, and what interactions there are between you and NSI.

> Oh?  You don't think that's relevant?

> Perhaps you are right.

While I will agree with you, Dave, that Tony is far from an objective
contributor to this process, one should also point out that neither
are you.  You worked hard to develop something that led to CORE, and
like anyone who worked so hard on something, you have to admit you are
less than objective when it comes to these issues.

However, this does not change the validity of what is being said by
either you or Tony.

Tony brings up a very valid point.  This NC is made up almost entirely
of people who have made a point of supporting the CORE proposals.
They have that unifying factor between them.  And this is one of the
major issues in this process, an issue where there is a broad spectrum
of opinion.  This NC is not representative of that spectrum at all,
and by definition it cannot be considered to be objective.


> Most distracting questions aren't relevant, are they?

> So let's suggest that we focus on issues that are directly relevant to
> making progress, instead of ones that are calculated to be directly
> relevant to maintaining a divisive tone and preventing progress.

> What do you say, Tony?

I think this topic is very relevant to making progress.  Its is a
point that shows that this panel on the NC does not represent a
diverse spectrum of opinions of the internet community, and hence
cannot make claims that their decisions are any sort of consensus.
This CORE agenda is one of the MAJOR issues in this process.

In any organization of this type, diversity brings STRENGTH.  Those
who sit on the NC should be working to bring diversity to the NC, MOST
ESPECIALLY from those whom they disagree with on fundamental issues
such as the CORE/gTLD-MoU principles. Otherwise there will ALWAYS
remain the cloud of impropriety over this DNSO and NC and any and all
"decisions" or "recommendations" they make.  Instead of doing this,
they are pushing a VERY rushed and hasty agenda on some of the most
important issues in this process without any kind of diversity in
place.  Outreach and expansion needs to be priority one, otherwise
"consensus" CANNOT be claimed, and any and all decisions made are
tainted.

You have never denied that your definition of progress is, quite
frankly, anything that leads to getting a CORE run gTLD added to the
roots in the most expeditious manner possible, regardless of the
compromises that must be made to get there, the ends justify the
means, and we can "fix" the mess created by doing things this
way later.  The simple fact is that once these precedents are in
place, they will be damn near impossible to reverse.  So questions
about the form and process are DEFINITELY on topic, and lead to
progress.

Progress MUST be defined as making this process as representative of
the wide spectrum of opinions, cultures, and interests as possible.

THEN the decisions that are made are less likely to have the "taint"
of the common "special interest" shared by such a large number (a vast
majority) of the current NC members.


--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org