Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end"

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Thanks for your comments Ron

My issue is with ICANN, and in the face of their discredited administration,
I reserve the right to be confrontational - which, in this case, includes
posing questions they don't want to discuss.

I have no issue with you Ron, or your right to dislike my style.

Indeed I agree with many of your views, and I would not be sorry if you were
elected onto the panel in place of me.

I genuinely wish you well, understand what you are saying here, and share
many of your expressed concerns.

However, with respect, I shall continue to challenge ICANN in a blunt and
straightforward way. I believe many people regard them as jerks and
fuckwits.

I would not disagree with that analysis.

Kind regards

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; Jeff Williams
<jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; <declan@well.com>
Cc: <politech@politechbot.com>; General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>;
atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
post on "self-regulation's end"


> Good morning, Richard:
>
>     I do not question the validity or "reasonableness" of your questions
to
> Mr Sims.  I do, however, question your delivery of those questions.
>
>     I am a new member of this group, introduced by a prime mover who is no
> longer in good health and unable to participate.  I have been primarily a
> lurker, attempting to get up to speed on the endeavors of this at-large
> group.  The arcane references to people and past events, known and
> understood only by "insiders" has made the aquisition of related knowledge
> somewhat difficult at times.  However, I have learned over the past few
> months that there are members who have certain defined and valuable skill
> sets, and others who have very different skill sets.  Your skill set, sir,
> does not include diplomacy.
>
>     Any reasonable person reading your letters would recoil from the
> aggressive and often overtly rude wording.  Why should anyone be inclined
to
> respond to questions, even serious questions, when they are presented in
> such an aggressive manner?
>
>     It is my humble opinion that our organization is in very real need of
a
> spokesperson representative who can carry our dialog to others in the
manner
> in which all successful international diplomacy is conducted.  We do need
> leaders who have the technical knowledge, the vision and the mindset that
> defines our organization as being representative of the global user.  But,
> we also need leaders who are managers (to bring our organization to
> functionality), marketing experts (to grow the membership to be truly
> representative of users on a global scale), and diplomatic communicators
(to
> present our case to ICANN, to government representatives, to other
> organizations and to the media. To allow our voice to be heard with
> respect).
>
>     While I respect and support your freedom to speak to whomever you wish
> as an individual, I do not think your communication skills are suitable
for
> representing me as a member of this organization.
>
> Sincerely, Ron Sherwood
>
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; <declan@well.com>
> Cc: <politech@politechbot.com>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
> <ga@dnso.org>; "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post on "self-regulation's end"
>
>
> >
> > I refer you to the reasonable questions and concerns sent to Dan
Halloran
> 35
> > days ago, which he has still not had the courtesy to acknowledge, let
> alone
> > answer, presumably because the ICANN Board would prefer not to answer
> > difficult (but reasonable and relevant) questions.
> >
> > Mr Sims,
> >
> > You don't have to be "religious" and zealous for global democracy to
> assert
> > that ICANN lacks responsiveness to its stakeholders. If you claim any
> > credibility at all, then kindly get me rational answers to my fair and
> > honest questions.
> >
> > But no, I guess you will not even reply, because the general public have
> > found in practice that the ICANN establishment skulks away and hides
when
> > challenging questions (relevant to stakeholders) are raised.
> >
> > Will you reply? Will ICANN acknowledge my relevant questions? Prove me
> > wrong! Get me some answers!
> >
> > Otherwise, kindly don't lecture us on ICANN at all, or create a
> smokescreen
> > of "global democracy lunatics" to hide behind. I do not have to be a
> lunatic
> > to request openness, responsiveness, courtesy and transparency. But that
> is
> > what ICANN (and I suggest possibly you - we shall see...) lack.
> >
> > Oh, and one other thing... whether ICANN is or is not self-regulatory,
it
> > presides over a system which is... registrars who regulate themselves,
and
> > who commit fraud, and yet remain accredited by ICANN.
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> > www.theInternetChallenge.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: <declan@well.com>
> > Cc: <politech@politechbot.com>; General Assembly of the DNSO
> <ga@dnso.org>;
> > atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:18 AM
> > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
post
> > on "self-regulation's end"
> >
> >
> > > Declan and all,
> > >
> > >   Of course, many of us that have been around for awhile, like myself,
> > > recognize that old Joe had to put some sort of spin on this.  That's
> > > what he gets paid to do after all, and handsomely to boot.  Hence
> > > giving his comments of this nature much credence or consideration
> > > would be a huge mistake or at least quite misleading...  Same
Ding-Dong,
> > > Sing-Song...
> > >
> > >
> > > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Previous Politech message:
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
> > > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html
> > > >
> > > > Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.
> > > >
> > > > -Declan
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > To: declan@well.com
> > > > Subject: Michael Geist's column
> > > > From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> > > > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400
> > > >
> > > > Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider
> publishing
> > > > this response.
> > > >
> > > > The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the
> > answer
> > > > to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound
lack
> of
> > > > understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does
> > > > it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since
he
> > has
> > > > the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to
> > > > correct his misunderstanding.
> > > >
> > > > Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory
> > > > body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It was
> > intended
> > > > to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to
> > global
> > > > issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national
> > governments
> > > > to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not
> > > > require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original
> > structure
> > > > called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large
> > membership
> > > > of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the
> > Internet
> > > > community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of the
> > > > discussions with the US Government that produced that construction,
is
> > > > undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that
decision,
> > and
> > > > I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was
> > convinced
> > > > that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers
> wanted
> > to
> > > > insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the
> time,
> > for
> > > > reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how
to
> > do
> > > > it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the
assistence
> of
> > > > Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this
position,
> > > > notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible
to
> > make
> > > > it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision.
> > > >
> > > > We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the
concepts
> > on
> > > > which the original construction rested, and we actually know some
> things
> > > > that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global
on-line
> > > > elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for
ICANN
> to
> > be
> > > > on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that there
> is
> > no
> > > > consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest
> > should
> > > > be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence
of
> > > > those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.  We
> > know
> > > > that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who
insist
> > on
> > > > direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other
> > > > alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious
> > > > approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.
> > > >
> > > > We also know that a purely private organization, without the support
> and
> > > > involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able
to
> > carry
> > > > out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission
> requires
> > > > the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure
> > > > providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive
> > > > power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the
community
> > > > voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed.
> To
> > > > date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why it
> has
> > not
> > > > happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold
> > > > on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators, the
> > address
> > > > registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to
the
> > ICANN
> > > > table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less
stable,
> > less
> > > > predictable organization.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the
> path
> > to
> > > > ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the
> > > > private sector and global governments working together within an
ICANN
> > > > structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective
> > > > decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such an
> ICANN,
> > > > and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting
> in
> > > > Bucharest later this month.
> > > >
> > > > The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the
> > failure
> > > > to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.
> Governments
> > are
> > > > properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly
> > critical
> > > > to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and
> because
> > > > what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable
> > operation
> > > > of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's
> > > > directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this fact
> that
> > is
> > > > driving the process of gaining the proper level of government
> > participation
> > > > in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists
> on
> > > > occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for some
> > > > utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a
body
> > that
> > > > does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the
> > entire
> > > > Internet provider and user community.
> > > >
> > > > Joe Sims
> > > > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > > > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > > > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > > > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > > > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > > > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> > > >
> > > > ==============================
> > > > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > > > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> > attorney-client
> > > > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public
information.
> It
> > is
> > > > intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you
> are
> > not
> > > > an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> > replying
> > > > to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> dissemination,
> > > > distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients
> > is
> > > > not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > > > ==============================
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> > > > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> > > > To subscribe to Politech:
> http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> > > > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > > > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> > >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> > >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de