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

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

Fair and interesting points, Ron.

In actual fact, you are right about the need to represent yourself as very
reasonable and reasoned in dealings at governmental level.

And I like the concept of "quiet strength" which you portray.

As the poet Chaucer put it: "The smiler with the knife under his cloak..."

Much that goes on at governmental / corporate level is like a pirouette of
niceties and what really counts is the authority that lurks behind the
sentences, and the political/power realities.

Thanks for your comments

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: <eric@hi-tek.com>; Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; <declan@well.com>;
<politech@politechbot.com>; General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>;
atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
post on "self-regulation's end"


> Dear Richard and Eric:
>
>     Thank you for your reasoned reply to my message. It was not meant to
be
> a personal indictment of any kind (although Richard could easily have
taken
> it to be so).  And, I am quite capable of matching the insult-fest if
there
> were a reason to do so.
>
>     I do bow to your experience with the people with whom you are
> corresponding. I do not have your history of personal contact with these
> people and, if you have proof that the "in-your-face" attacks really work,
> who am I to argue with success?
>
>     My input is from a different perspective.  I joined this organization
> believing that it was to represent those Internet users who had been
> disenfranchised by the change in ICANN policy that eliminated existing
> representation on the ICANN Board of Directors.  Over the past few months,
I
> have seen much internal bickering and name calling, personal attacks and
> language that has painted a less than professional picture of the
fledgling
> organization. I have read many messages, the tone of which would
discourage
> potential members from ever joining, much less participating in, our work.
>
>     It is my personal opinion that, if we are to grow from a few hundred
> members with a couple of dozen participants, to a million members with top
> quality representation, we need to elevate the language of our official
> communications to a level that will be taken seriously by other leaders,
and
> by the government and pseudo government representatives with whom we are
> bound to deal.
>
>     Using wit and pointed questions is great.  Walking softly while
carrying
> a big stick is admirable. And you may be sure that I am not one to allow
my
> words to be interpreted as "passive admission".
>
>     However, aggressive, inflammatory, personal attacks are not the same
as
> using wit or walking softly.  And where such dialog is carried out in
public
> a public forum, the attacker is likely to lose support faster than the
> attacked.
>
>     Diplomacy is the art of carrying the big stick to your opponent with a
> smile that your supporters (and your enemies) recognize as comfortable
moral
> superiority. The big stick that you carry is of greater influence if it is
> known to be there, but is concealed beneath your cloak of cordiality.
>
> Regards, Ron Sherwood
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>; "Jeff Williams"
> <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; <declan@well.com>; <politech@politechbot.com>;
> "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@dnso.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post on "self-regulation's end"
>
>
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > This is in fact a very useful thread.
> >
> > One of the finest diplomats of this century is regarded in history as a
> > brute.
> > His position was stated simply "Walk softly and carry a big stick"
> >
> > In our case our stick must be large public opinion and large membership,
> > proper procedure and representativeness - The prongs of the white paper
> > which ICANN cannot afford.
> > But at this point that is questionable and so we have been using sharp
> > wit and pointed questions which are usually answered by plausibly
> > deniable responses by plausibly deniable persons such as Mr. Sims.
> >
> > But I caution Ron.  In the Western legal evidentiary parlance they have
> > a term "passive admission", which essentially requires any horrendous
> > allegation or act be met with an equal horrendous denial or act, or it
> > is admission that the allegation is valid.  Yes I am speaking of
> > violence, but of the verbal kind which Mr. Henderson engaged in with Mr.
> > Sims.
> >
> > Ron it would appear you miss two vital points;
> > We are not dealing with nice people here.
> > We are the only factor which has a chance of helping our dotcommoners
> > maintain accessibility.
> > When I say we I refer to those of us who actively participate in
> > blocking the unconscionable conduct of a monopolistic grouping of US
> > centric Corporations.
> > WLS is a perfect example of out pricing dotcommoners.
> >
> > Some of what we need to do here is extremely uncomfortable, but fine
> > folks like Mr. Henderson have to keep doing it, in the face of such
> > horrendous activity flowing from the top down.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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