[wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE)OF WORKI

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

In a different context, sentencing a guilty man to death following a fundamentally unfair trial is not an injustice.

In a pig's eye.  The whole idea of democracy is that the
validity of a policy is not judged by its substance, but by its
having been forged through legitimate, democratic means. 
Monarchical government ignores the means by which a policy
is forged and pretends that the policy, if issued by one of the 
elect few who "know" what is right, is perforce correct.  

The Internet is an arena of perception as much as anything else, 
and the way in which the report is being issued cannot be 
perceived as reflective of the consensus of the WG, much 
less the Internet Community.

That much said, it should not be overlooked that much about 
ICANN lacks even a shred of legitimacy.  After seven attempts 
to join the GA and subscribe to the GA list, I have given up the 
quest.  The NCDNHC join-up process is seriously broke, and 
there's no evident (much less transparent) mechanism for bringing 
the brokenness of the process to the attention of anyone.  
Most of all, the decision of ICANN not to add new GTLDs to the 
root except as supported by the consensus of the Internet 
Community is indistinguishable from waiting for the arrival of 
the chimera before ringing the dinner bell.  It's not going to happen.

The smart money has been on NSI all along.  This whole process 
no longer even tries to resemble anything other than a very poorly 
constructed shaggy dog story.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.

>>> "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com> 03/07/00 11:07PM >>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary".  

Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the
rough consensus reached on the list, Kent?

If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself
was not formally voted on.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/ 
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ 

iD8DBQE4xdHl8zLmV94Pz+IRAjRdAKCMHZRA5/Z52ADFotM60kFPt/WZgQCgm1Fy
q0CgEvIAqJztAKQLHBgUeQY=
=90dJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************