Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

jsims@JonesDay.com (Wed 05/22/02 at 09:06 AM -0400):

> While these are cogent comments, they do illustrate the difficulty of
> actually writing something called a "mission statement" that is both
> something more than a listing of specific acts that are permissible (which
> is certainly not a mission statement that would be useful on a going
> forward basis) and writing something less specific that is not subject to
> the kind of word-smithing that Thomas has done.  I renew the invitation
> that ICANN has made for several months now:  If anyone thinks they can
> write a better mission statement, please do so.  There seem to be a lot
> more editors than authors in the ICANN population.

and, conversely, there seem to be a lot more authors than editors 
in the ICANN staff. that in itself is a problem, because you have
a dedicated staff that's paid (well) to produce what in effect is
a denial of services attack on the volunteers who are critical of
ICANN.

really, if i may say so, your message is a bit bratty. basically,
you're saying that ICANN will do whatever it wants unless someone
puts an alternative program in front of their collective face. we
know how that works, though: if we did what you insist on, staff
would (a) ignore it, (b) kibbitz it to death, (c) mangle it into 
something entirely different and call it 'consensus,' (d) accept
it, go off on a frolic if its own, and then subject all challenges
to absurdly litigious readings, and/or (e) some or (*amazingly*) 
all of the above on an ad hoc basis.

alternatively, if ICANN would like to hire me to edit their new
mission statement, i'm all ears. now there's a proposition. :)

cheers,
t
--
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