Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:36:29 -0700, you wrote:

>At 10:50 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>I'm not sure anyone here has said they are angry.   I am disappointed
>>not that modifications were made but that they were made after
>>explicit assurances were given that there would be no changes.  This
>>is a bit like changing the rules in the 9th innings.
>
>No, it is a bit like a large, intractable company deciding that bad public 
>press is worth responding to.
>
>We should take some pleasure in Versign's concessions, rather take part in 
>the constant complaint-fest.

Oh please.  You wave every single complaint about ICANN away as
unjustified whinging and never ever seem to wonder if there is a
reason for it.  Do you really think the whole world is wrong all the
time?

I have said the concessions are welcome but the fact concessions have
been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
irreversible effects.  

>>The issue is not whether the changes enhance Option B.  It is whether
>>it is good process to have the Board making decisions on new
>>agreements with no chance to consult on them and less than 24 hours to
>>consider them.
>
>Your statement is directly in line with the many other participants who are 
>more concerned about the precise details of process than they are about 
>making real progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.

On the contrary I have made many posts on the substance of the
proposals and on other substantive issues.  In fact Mr Crocker with
all respect you have been singled out many times as one who has
refused to address substantive issues.  

You also do a dis-service by suggesting that all complaints re process
are unimportant.  A complaint that one only has 60 days instead of 62
days to consider an issue is trivial.  A complaint that one has less
than 24 hours and no formal opportunity for input is not trivial and
in fact goes to the very heart of ICANN's bylaws and founding
principles.

>Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack of 
>real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a 
>disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.

If I had a casual attitude about the content I would try to make a
snap judgement on them without having time to gather further
information and do a detailed analysis.  It is due to my desire to be
able to consider the content that say the main issue for now is
gaining the delay.

>Let's stop treating this as an academic exercise in abstract governance and 
>treat it more like the pragmatic task of operations administration that it is.

As someone who has practical experience in government and operations
administration I find your perception somewhat lacking.  

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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