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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ron and all stakeholders of interested parties,

Ron Sherwood wrote:

> Good evening, Jeff:
>
>     Thank you for your comments and explanation of Richards, talents. His
> replies to my messages certainly support your position.

  In the language of diplomacy which yo seem to have such a strong
and obviously needful attachment with, Than YOU for your consideration
of my response.  However I see that in the remaining part of your post
below, your comment above seem not to reign true or accurate as
you state it.  Therefor leaving the unfortunate and rather distasteful
disguise of being deceptively and deceitfully agreeable in it...

> As wrote in my last
> message:
>
>     "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?"

  It is exactly Richard's and many others "in your face" confrontation's
with honesty, that have been somewhat successful.  The distasteful and
inaccurate use of the term "Attacks" is neither diplomatic in this context,
Ron, nor is it productive.  Ergo, for someone whom touts the need for
more diplomatic couching of question such a Richard posed, it would
seem that you only wish to point the finger at him, in this instance, in order
to enhance your desire for a more diplomatic approach that lacks the
very diplomatic language you espouse to desire to be used.  I personally
fine that remarkable and also rather negatively extraordinary...

>
>
>     However I also explained my perspective:
>
>     "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.

  Many feel as you do here.  However this forum is a good place to determine
a strategy for addressing this pressing concern, but not a place where such
a concern can be actually addressed, as Nancy J. Victory clearly indicated
in here stated remarks on June 12, to the US Senate.  Rather Ron, such
remarks/concerns should seemingly be directed to the GAC and/or
Nancy J. Victory herself.

>  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.

  Indeed you have, as have I heard name calling, bickering, and the like
on this and other forums for this effort be put forth.  Many times such
bickering is quite refreshing as it is unabashed and not tainted in
sheepish diplomatic language so s to promulgate or unnecessarily
extend discussion and debate to no known ends, but rather to
clearly state where or what direction is most likely to be successful
such a direct, indiscreet, and unabashed confrontation..

> I have read many messages, the tone of which would discourage
> potential members from ever joining, much less participating in, our work.

  Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.  However what seems to
be more of a problem with gaining membership for ICANNATLARGE.COM
is the fact that as an organization it has not known legitimacy that was stated
originally by Joop and Pinder as immediate must do tasks to be completed.

>
>
>     And I added:
>
>     "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."

  Government and pseudo government representatives clearly understand
blunt 'In your face" language as is plainly evident in debates on CSPAN,
for instance in the Well of the Senate, as well as on the Floor of the House
of Representatives.  Indeed on 9/12 in NYC the president menced
no words when he made i clear that he understood the feelings of
the American People and especially the poeple of New York City
after the terrorists attack on the World Trade Center Towers...
So Ron, Diplomatic language comes in many forms, and has many
tenses as well as embraces many styles, such as Richards...

>
>
>     It was the tone of Richards letter to Mr. Sims that triggered a response
> to the picture painted by others.

  Yes this was unfortunately but plainly obvious.  However your response
to Richard was plainly misguided or inappropriate in its conjecture.

> I hope that my message, and your
> explanation, satisfies the many "wimps" who's support we will need to become
> viable. Thank you for enlightening me.

  Wimps support no one, not even themselves.  Hence, the need as you put it
for their support is not only unfounded, but very possibly a detriment...

>
>
> Regards, Ron Sherwood
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> Cc: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.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 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post on "self-regulation's end"
>
> > Ron and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >   Indeed it is difficult to know or even adequately consider whom is and
> whom
> > is not an "Insider".  In our members expressed opinion, such distinctions
> > are not only of questionable, but of very questionable value...
> >
> > >  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.
> >
> >   I respectfully disagree form two different but related perspectives Ron.
> > Richard's style varies as the situation warrants, and often times when
> dealing
> > with the likes of Joe Sims, Louis Touton, Stuart Lynn, and other ICANN
> > staff and BoD members, diplomatic language is normally not only non
> productive
> > as to achieve a specific goal, but engenders unnecessarily prolonged
> debate
> > and deepens disagreement as the spirituous competition as to whom is
> > being more politically correct in the use of diplomacy becomes more
> > of the argument that substantive points towards a reasonable conclusion.
> > Hence Ron, I am personally quite pleased and appreciative of Richard's,
> > approaches and use of, or lack there of of diplomatic discourse...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Any reasonable person reading your letters would recoil from the
> > > aggressive and often overtly rude wording.
> >
> >   If they do, than they have something to hide or are just wimps..
> >
> > > Why should anyone be inclined to
> > > respond to questions, even serious questions, when they are presented in
> > > such an aggressive manner?
> >
> >   They should do so to show openness, transparency and an interest in
> reaching
> > reasonable conclusions regardless of the tone of the questions posed by
> > ANY stakeholder/user...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     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.
> >
> >   To a degree you are right, but also do a degree we need s spokesman,
> > like Richard that can also be a bull dog as well.
> >
> > >  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).
> >
> >   Indeed you are more correct here.  But we cannot and should not have
> > a spokesman that is a diplomatic wimp that is mainly interested in being
> > politically correct in the use of his/her vocabulary...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >     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.
> >
> >   Well Ron, you can always leave the organization, or propose someone
> > else that you believe might better represent this organization in the
> manner
> > you believe would be to the broad spectrum of the membership.  I would
> > be VERY interested in whom you have in mind and why you think that
> > person is better suited.  Otherwise to just criticize Richard, have an
> > alternative to suggest as well and state whom that person is and why
> > you believe he/she would be a better spokesman or representative.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> > > > >
> > > >
>
>

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