But what was the subject? [Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection]

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>Indeed, there is a great deal of value in Froomkin's paper.  I read it,
>and I believe that I largely understood what I read.  It presents an
>interesting view of things.  It's just a pity that it wasn't written by
>someone with a bit less of a ax to grind.
>

I am quoting this, but I could have quoted similar passages in dozens of 
other posts in the last days. I just happen to read this at the end of my 
effort in catching up my e-mail.

I am wondering who are the readers of this list.

Are they people that have understood so far that:
- Prof. Froomkin is critical of ICANN
- Kent Crispin is not critical of ICANN
- Dave Crocker, among other things, is a consultant for NeuStar
- Patrick Corliss, GA AltChair, is an officer of TLDA
- Chris Ambler is an officer of IOD, candidate registry for .web
- Marylin Cade works for AT&T
.... and so on, and so forth?

Each of us, at least those here since some time, have our own bias (I do 
too, but since I'm biased, I don't see my own bias - exercise for you to 
figure it out).
Each and every reader of this list should have figured out, so far.

What is the point in telling in every post what the biases are, sometimes 
even forgetting to reply on the merit of the matter?
I personally *do disagree* with a lot of points of the analysis of Prof. 
Froomkin (and he knows). But I don't even have the time to reply on the 
merit of some statements, because I have hundreds of e-mails that have an 
innocent subject line, when they are dedicated to demolish not the idea, but 
the people behind it.

Yes, I do believe that Prof. Froomkin is biased (against ICANN).
I do think that sometimes (often?) he exagerates in the criticism of ICANN, 
but sometimes (often?) he sees things I do not see at first glance. Is he 
acting this way to improve his career, or because he genuinely thinks what 
he writes? I do not know, and frankly I do not care.

Yes, I do believe that Kent Crispin is biased (for ICANN).
I do think that sometimes (often?) he exagerates in defending ICANN, but 
sometimes (often?) he sees things I do not see at first glance. Is he acting 
this way because of economical ties with ICANN, or because he genuinely 
thinks what he writes? I do not know, and frankly I do not care.

I would like to get to the point in which people read the posts, make their 
own judgement, pass to the next, and do reply when they have a counter 
argument *on the matter* not *about the author*.

Besides, often when laymen (laypeople?) read a post with argumentation by 
Mr./Ms. Smith, and the next post is one by Mr./Ms. Jones saying how badly 
biased Smith is, and how obvious it is that he/she is biased because [insert 
your reason here], the first reaction is: "Mmmmhh, maybe Jones is biased 
too!?!".

I do not snip the remainder of the message, so you can enjoy how direct on 
the substance of the discussion the argumentations were.
BTW, somebody remembers what the original point under debate was? It sure 
does not appear from the dialogue below.

Regards
Roberto

> > >4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective
> > >observer, but he is not.
> >
> > Being objective is to be "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
> > prejudices".  I am not aware Michael has any commercial interests
> > which would lead to be not objective or that he has any personal
> > prejudices.
> >
> > Apart from the fact you disagree with what he says in what other way
> > is Michael not objective?
>
>I deduce that from the emotional tone of some of his writings.  eg:
>
>     "From the news: Mike Roberts shares his lessons learned from ICANN
>     (health warning: don't be swallowing anything when you read the
>     first one)."
>              Posted by michael on Friday, April 13 @ 08:58:23 MDT
>              http://www.icannwatch.org
>
>     "Mike Roberts stepped down as 'temporary' CEO of ICANN this week,
>     leaving the stage to M.  Stuart Lynn, who must have one of the
>     easiest acts in history to follow."
>
>     "Read on for a few pearls from the wit and wisdom of Mike
>     Roberts-the man who, more than anyone except perhaps Joe Sims, is
>     responsible for the widespread belief that ICANN has contempt for
>     and freezes out anyone who doesn't either agree with it or credibly
>     threaten to sue it."
>              Posted by michael on Friday, March 16 @ 08:03:16 MST
>              http://www.icannwatch.org
>
>You probably agree with Froomkins writings, above, and probably find
>them witty.  But I don't see how either of his ICANNWatch articles from
>which the above quotes came could be reasonably construed as anything
>but gratuitious personal attacks directed at Mike Roberts.  But perhaps
>I'm missing something? Perhaps you could explain to me how these
>articles are actually objective attempts to deal with serious issues?
>
>It is also interesting that my comments concerning Froomkin's paper
>generate such response -- it's really not *scripture*, you know.  It's
>also amazing to me that people claim that my comments are some kind of
>serious personal attack directed at Froomkin.  Saying that someone is
>"not an objective observer" -- wow!...  perhaps that calls for pistols
>at dawn?
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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