Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

         Joe's pot-shot at ICANNWatch, below, is one of a series of 
references to it on the ga list lately.  If any subscriber to this list 
still doesn't know ICANNWatch, it's edited these days by Michael Froomkin, 
me, ted byfield, David Post, and Milton Mueller.  We're not monolithic -- 
each of us has his own viewpoints and style -- and I think the result is 
both discerning and useful.  Visit us at <www.icannwatch.org>, and decide 
for yourself.

         Joe is right that Bret's proposals -- *aside from* [1] electing 
six directors in global at-large elections and [2] establishing a ccSO -- 
are pretty limited (though Joe's characterization ignores Bret's other key 
point, which is that ICANN should trash as ill-considered all of the 
restructuring proposals in the Lynn Report).  The gist of Joe's response 
below is:  "Thank you for your suggestions, Bret.  The important ones 
(at-large elections and ccSO) are off the table, and we won't consider 
them.  We're delighted to discuss the unimportant ones."  I don't Joe could 
have better illustrated the points ted makes in 
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=762> if he had tried.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com




At 12:55 PM 5/24/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.  Bret's
>constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to the
>Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
>never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
>naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
>objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the editors
>have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
>ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's suggested
>revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
>you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
>an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
>complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
>relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
>elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
>refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
>other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
>argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
>Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
>conspiracy theories to follow,
>
>
>Joe Sims
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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