RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Uh, oh, I'm not sure which I meant: 


......about Rome, I mean. I think I was thinking about the city... laying
bricks, etc..... nothing more significant there.

remember I'm Irish by heritage.

:-)

which doesn't mean anything probably to anyone here.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 11:55 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'Eric Dierker'; Kent Crispin; review
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Maybe that's the answer. To be critical and hostile, and suspicious...

Critical? Yes. Hostile? No, more like opposed.  Opposition *can* be
perceived as
being hostile, or not.  Suspicious?  How about plain old "curious"?

> But that seems an "easy answer" to me. It discounts me, and Kent Crispin,
> and ... Mike Roberts, and Denis Jennings, and ... many more.........

Hey, I'm not dicounting anyone, dialogue is dialogue.  Mind you, at times I
have
felt as if I (and others like me) are being discounted.

> I'd like to create an environment which respects each of us (and all new
> players
> as they learn about and get engaged) and yet ensures stability.
> Infrastructure must be stable. Otherwise, businesses and individuals who
> count on it, fail.... seems a critical issue to all of us as we work to
> ensure that ICANN can achieve it's mission. private sector (that means
> industry, non commercials, and more)  oversight of the technical issues of
> the Internet: protocols, addressing, and domain names policy.

Of course infrastructure must be stable, no arguments there from anyone here
I'm
sure (including me!).  Let me just give you the condensed version of what I
think is the biggest threat to stability at this point.

The tools are provided by the Masters, the People pay their fair share for
use
of the tools.
The Masters have formed "corporate" alliances through mergers, marriages,
etc.,
and a "corporate" Master Oligarchy now imposes unjustly on the people who
are
the First Colonists in the New Frontier... a Frontier whose Discovery *was*
initially financed by the established vested interests of  the original
Masters.  But, where did all the Masters get the money anyway?

Now, the People (History has shown us time and again) do not generally
begrudge
the wealth of the Masters, as long as there is still Opportunity for the
People.  But, if/when the Masters have become so drunk on their greed and
avarice that they begin to squeeze UNFAIRLY... well that's where the
problems
for the Masters begin.  For, evidence of the unfairness soon becomes
widespread,
and they bring their ensuing ill fortunes upon themselves, so to speak.

What was the impetus behind the creation of the United States of America in
the
first place? an issue over Tea-time and Philately!? I wonder if anybody's
ever
heard the phrase "re-distribution of wealth"?

Basically, all I'm saying, is that if  *some people* wish to press ahead
with a
nasty infrastructure grab agenda... let them keep trying, and we'll really
see
some instability then.

> Let's see if there are other alternatives, or other ways to be heard.  I
> think that the one issue we all agree on is: let's hear as much as
possible
> from diverse voices.

No argument there.

> I'm not in total alignment with the views expressed by the group, but I
will
> help to ensure that discontent is recognized. As well as agreement.

That sounds encouraging, but is it sincere?  Time will tell, I suppose.

> I don't agree with anarchy as a result, but I will work to achieve
processes
> which enable input, even when the voices are in disagreement with mine.

Take it from me (or not), but I don't think anybody wants Anarchy, just some
Opportunity.

> I don't agree with many of the views expressed in the WG-Review but I
> support the need to have a vehicle to identify and work toward
constructive
> input.

Ditto for me.

> I don't support complete overturn of the constituency model, but I am open
> to dialogue about new constituencies if they indeed are able to
demonstrate
> that they can provide an organized and coherent input.

As you said, we should be allowed to agree that we disagree in a forum where
we
can work on our differences.

> In short, change doesn't scare me. ICANN isn't the total answer to issues
> related to the Internet. I work in other fora, where the governance of
> content on the Internet is the topic of the day. Anyone who wants to help
> prevent governmental oversight of the Internet on content should be
joining
> other groups... and their input would be very helpful. But this is not
ICANN's
> agenda.

>
> let's get back to ICANN:  we haven't really enabled dialogue.  But we have
a
> good start. Let's think about dialogue which is meaningful and supports
> contributions.
>
> It's not just Rome which wasn't built in a day.

The Republic or the Empire?

SS
HN, Inc.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html