Adam:
Ahh...good. Substance. See inline.
On Sunday, February 2, 2003, at 12:02 PM, adam beecher wrote:
>>> Words can't express how angry that statement makes me feel
>>> Elliot. It's an insult to the intelligence of your customers.
>>
>> Can you clarify this a bit? I spent a lot of time dealing with
>> ICANN matters and therefore soaking up a lot of the criticism
>> that goes its way. I would personally agree that a good portion
>> of the criticism is warranted to differing degrees, but
>> certainly not the majority and certainly not all the time. A
>> lot of it comes from those with an axe to grind and even that
>> which comes from supposedly unbiased sources is just plain
>> wrong. I'd have to side with Elliot on this one and really
>> don't understand what it is that raised your ire to the degree
>> that your words convey...
>>
> Funny, I thought I was talking to Elliot.
Ross kindly jumps in to allow me to eat meals and go to the bathroom
;-).
>
> In the few years since I became an OpenSRS reseller, I've kept an eye
> on DNS
> issues. Obviously I'm not an expert or you'd know me better, but I
> certainly
> believe I have a good overview of what's going on, and I reckon I'm
> intelligent enough to decide what's guff and what's not for the most
> part.
> I've also been communications director for a couple of groups
> campaigning
> for better comms here in Ireland, so I can spot spin when I see it.
> ICANN is
> the epitome of spin.
>
> In that time, I've seen ICANN do everything in their power to /avoid/
> openness and transparency. The only thing that /is/ transparent about
> the
> organisation - at least to me - is their blatant attempts to grab and
> hold
> power, to stamp on any attempt at representation, and to line their own
> pockets; not just with cash - although the assertion that they haven't
> made
> money out of their positions is almost embarassing
Tell me more. What are the examples of money making that have offended
you? I don't mean names and amounts but situations. I often hear this
and am not sure what it refers to.
> - but also with power and
> recognition.
>
Can't argue there, but I don't think anyone is currently boasting at
dinner parties about their ICANN affiliation.
> How can you possibly believe that an organisation that holds secret
> meetings
> with no published minutes is transparent?
http://www.icann.org/minutes/notes-minutes.htm
I have never seen an organization where the meetings and detailed
background to the meetings is more accessible. A public company DOES
NOT publish meeting minutes. I have asked in the past for examples of
openness and transparency that should be aspired to and have not heard
any offered, and I am not being sarcastic when I say this.
> How can you possibly believe that
> an organisation that won't provide accounts to it's own directors is
> open?
I don't like the behaviour of either side in this matter and have told
both sides same.
> How can you possibly believe that the removal of At-Large directors
> from the
> board is the answers to the problems that they have created for
> themselves?
Wait and see how the Nominating Committee develops. Remember that the
ALAC will put 5 people on the Nominating Committee, significantly more
than any other group. This, IMHO, came out of the Heathrow document
(http://rblog.vpop.net/heathrow/), drafted by Tim Denton, Ross and I.
Let's see who the 8 board members (out of 15) are that come out of
NomCom. If they suck, then voting may have been a better way. If they
are good, hopefully they will create an environment that will allow the
process to evolve to one where representative voting can work.
> I don't think you can believe any of those. I think you're only fooling
> yourself.
>
> Don't get me wrong, if I ever find myself in a position where I have
> to work
> with ICANN, I will, because that's the way things are, that's the way
> things
> have to be. But I will not support them while they continue to abuse
> their
> power and trample on my rights, I will never defend their operating
> methods,
I am not either. I am talking about the structure, not the
implementation.
> and I will never, ever, try to paint them as open and transparent
> while they
> are not.
Here we disagree.
Thanks for taking the time to write all this. My family has walked in
so I will go have some fun!
Regards
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:37 EDT