Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #337
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 337

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:20:43 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:39:15 -0700, you wrote:

>At 11:52 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>Oh please.  You wave every single complaint about ICANN away as
>>unjustified whinging and never ever seem to wonder if there is a
>>reason for it.  Do you really think the whole world is wrong all the
>>time?
>
>Please consider the perspective of your comments.
>
>The tiny number of participants in ICANN discussions is not the whole 
>world. It is an extremely selective sampling.

I was not referring to just people on mailing lists.  I agree it is
unrepresentative.  I also refer to the almost entirely negative
coverage in the media, the critical comments from Congress and also
the first hand comments from people who have gone to ICANN meetings
with absolutely no vested interests and come back shocked.

I have a lot of respect for those who have put hard work into making
ICANN work but I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
that all criticism is wrong and ICANN could not be performing a lot
better.  

>As to wondering why there is so much whining, indeed I often do, though you 
>will not be surprised that my assessment for the reason(s) is quite 
>different from yours.  Please see 
><http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/> for some of my 
>perspective, notably 
><http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/sld009.htm>.

Thanks - an interesting presentation.  I agree partially with you.  Of
course there will always be people unhappy with ICANN no matter how
good a job it does.  The alternate root community is an obvious one.

But just because there will always be some criticism is no reason to
dismiss all criticism or not be able to be concerned about the amount
of it.  My local ccTLD used to have such an attitude and got a nasty
shock when to be blunt the AGM sacked the entire board of the company
and all bar one of the Councillors due up for re-election.

I probably shouldn't say this but 6 - 12 months ago I regarded the
"loyal opposition" to ICANN as not quite just the crazies but not far
off.  I used to think Michael Froomkin was merely some pompous
unrealistic academic (sorry Michael :-) and like you (whom I used to
agree with a lot as a lurker) I had the attitude lets just get on with
things and damn those who try and get in the way.

My view on ICANN has changed massively and this is rare for me as a
conservative creature.  As I have had more time to read posts, read
stories, peruse background documents and observe ICANN meetings
(remotely) I have grown more and more alarmed.  There are IMO real
problems with ICANN structure, communications, processes and some
decisions.

Ironically I still think overall ICANN Board has made more right than
wrong decisions but it is not enough to merely be "okay" when with
some common sense one could be "good".

As I said previously to Kent, when you are having people with no
vested interests who used to be ICANN supporters get more and more
disillusioned with how ICANN is operating then it is time to wonder if
things should be changed.

>>I have said the concessions are welcome but the fact concessions have
>>been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
>>manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
>>irreversible effects.
>
>Thank you for noting the need for professionalism.  Unfortunately your 
>assessment of relvant behavior is quite simply wrong.
>
>Professionals make contractual decisions in minutes, not months.

If it was merely contractual matters at issue one could agree.  But
the issues of the proposed agreements and changes go beyond that.  

Anyway the argument is moot now as the decision has been made.  

>>You also do a dis-service by suggesting that all complaints re process
>>are unimportant.
>
>Distorting my comments is not helpful.  I was careful in my writing; please 
>be careful in your reading.
>
>Since you are so concerned about process, I am sure that you will 
>appreciate the need for carefully attending to what people really say.

I made my comments based on the totality of your comments in the last
few months.  All I have seen is attacks on those who do raise
complaints.  I have seen little of substance and never any
acknowledgement that things could or should be done better.  

>>A complaint that one has less
>>than 24 hours and no formal opportunity for input is not trivial and
>>in fact goes to the very heart of ICANN's bylaws and founding
>>principles.
>
>This takes us directly back to the core fact that Verisign is running a 
>business and has no philosophical interest, and even less business 
>incentive, in the casual process that you want.

Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
negotiations for an extension.  I don't mind losing out in tough
negotiations when we tried our best but when we don't even try it is
no wonder we fail.

>You might see the latest revision as an example that public feedback can 
>have an effect; you are right.  You might see it as meaning that we can get 
>a delay; you are almost certainly wrong.  Changing dates affects schedules; 
>changing schedules affects expenses and revenues.
>
>What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?

Huge huge incentive.  If they are told not agreeing will increase the
chance of the status quo remaining.  But we didn't try for a delay -
not even for a month, a week or even a few days.  We will never know
if we could have got a delay in order to have fuller consideration.  

>>If I had a casual attitude about the content I would try to make a
>>snap judgement on them without having time to gather further
>>information and do a detailed analysis.  It is due to my desire to be
>>able to consider the content that say the main issue for now is
>>gaining the delay.
>
>In the last MONTH of careful analysis through public discussion, there was 
>intense focus on issues that were entirely irrelevant to the contract 
>choice, and essentially no attention to the key contract differences that 
>matter.

You have made this claim often but the GA Chair amongst others has
rebutted this.  Yes some people spent much of the time debating *.org.
But many people did not and did comment on the key differences.

>For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not 
>been doing it.

The 19 NC members certainly have done so.  It would have been proper
IMO to give the NC a chance to comment on whether the last minute
changes are in accordance with what they wanted.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:12:07 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:18 PM
> 
> At 11:43 AM 3/30/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Roeland,
> >
> >>It is the ex-chair of the IAHC and the PAB chair (D'Crock 
> and Crispin) that
> >>were the most staunch proponents for an exclusive-elite 
> model. Both had
> >>involvement in CORE, to my knowlege.
> 
> Having not read the original note, I've no idea what an 
> "exclusive-elite model" is.

Then you had best get on and read the original, eh?

> However one indication of the factual accuracy of the rest of 
> the note is 
> that I was never chair of the IAHC (nor chair of the POC).  I 
> was merely a 
> member of each.
> 
> My involvement with CORE was limited to participation in a single, 
> formative meeting in New York City, some years ago, before CORE was 
> formally active.  The meeting was for the purpose of 
> formulating an initial 
> specification of registry technical requirements.
> 
> The author has been active in this topic for a long time and 
> should know 
> such facts.

Yep, I know a lot of facts. However, without integration, facts are useless.
However, I remember the fact that you wrote about LEADING the IAHC in their
quest. I would not have mentioned it otherwise. Are you denying this now?
That would be another fact. How much has CORE paid you over the years?

However, that is not the point. Do you deny that you hold the position that
the ORSC and other inclusive root zone operators be ignored and that their
TLD assignments should be ignored? Even to the point of colliding with them,
such as IOD WEB? That the USG root zone is the one and true root, even if
the others avoid collision? ... that you wouldn't mind steering the ICANN
into a collision course with the inclusive root zone operators and their
TLDs?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:34:33 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contra ct)

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 2:13 PM

> At 02:19 01/04/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at 
> root level.

> ns1.earthlink.net, which belongs to an organization that 
> new.net claims as 
> a supporter, responds to a query for NS records of shop. with 
> the reply 
> that shop. has NS records pointing to udns1.newdotnet.net and 
> udns2.newdotnet.net

> Care to define how you understood "at root level"?

Actually, they appear to be running their own root zone. Jefsey may be
slightly incorrect here.

> >Harald, what I say is simply that if BIND was written in a slightly 
> >different way, the whole conception of the iCANN and the USG will be 
> >different. Exactly like if the use of the DNS was slightly 
> different the 
> >whole TM issue would be different. This you should undestand 
> and know. 
> >(Will I have some spare time, I will pick and change my 
> named code and use 
> >it for my own root).
> 
> Please.....if the DNS (as defined by RFC 1035 and associates) 
> had been 
> slightly different, it would not have been the DNS.
> And if men were more friendly, we would have less anger.
> So what?

I seriously disagree. BIND, from its infancy, has been crippled. The reason
for the disability was that, at the time, no one wanted to chase down
recursive effects beyond the current design. The reason is simple and
admirable, there were already too many unkowns, at the level that they did
stop, and there was no forseeable benefit to going beyond that point. The
architects drew a semi-arbitrary line in the sand and said "we stop here,
for this moment". Now, those unknowns exist no longer and be need to go
beyond that line. To claim that this would make it no longer a DNS system is
fallacious. As an architect, I might have done the same thing. But, as an
architect, freezing the design there, in perpetuity, is just plain wrong. A
design that cannot grow and mutate with changing requirements is a bad
design. Fortunately the DNS doesn't fall into that catagory. Stopping
innovation by artificial/political means is equally as wrong. In fact, it
can't be done. The open source movement has proven that admirably. BIND is
open-source.

Please allow me to repost something I sent to the DOMAIN-POLICY list;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> 
> > My problem has never been with the idea of
> > alternative roots... it
> > is with rogue operations that don't concern themselves with
> > their impact on others.
> 
> That is our concern too.
> 
> > I'm willing to depart the idea of ICANN as "THE" root... just
> > tell me what we're accepting in it's place, and why we should.
> 
> We need to switch gears from root-zone to name-space and give 
> up on having them be synonymous anymore. Just like we parted 
> ways with hosts.txt. In fact, none of this would be an issue 
> if BIND did restricted iterative searches among root servers.  
> The algorithm is not that hard and the code is
> even easier. There are one or two caveats you have to watch 
> out for. If each of the 13 entries was then a pointer to a 
> load-balancer, which each had a whole constellation of identical 
> root-servers, then the whole thing becomes
> extremely scalable, moreso than the present system. 
> By an order of magnitude, or more.
> 
> I've been sitting on this technology for years. It works. 
> It's part of our WarpGate project. Yes, it requires a slight 
> re-architecture, at the top, in order to see maximum 
> benefit(TANSTAAFL). 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:50:45 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:20 PM

> I'm disappointed to hear from some that they are angry about the
> modifications being made to Option B.  

I don't think I see anger at the modification. Rather, I see anger at the
process. It looks entirely too much like many of the railroad-jobs that have
already run many of us over. When someone tries to ruch me into a rapid
decision, involving lots of money, and then follows it up with last-minute
changes, combined with pressuring me into taking a rapid and possibly ill
thoughtout position, my first reaction is to put the brakes on the entire
mess and revert to status quo. Yes, I may have missed out on some benefit
but, more often, I have avoided falling into a very deep ditch.

This is exactly the scenario I see at play here.

> These seem to me to be 
> responsive to the comments presented by the NC and the 
> constituencies. I never thought that the Constituencies, or 
> the NC should micro-manage the contract
> negotiations, but should instead offer policy advice, which 
> they did, in my view. 

Micro-managing the deal is one thing, rubber-stamping what could be a
mistake of major proportions is another thing altogether. I don't see a need
for the urgency here. Why are they applying the pressure? Along with the
"big toothy grin", that is one of the things that raises the alarm bells
with me. I'd like to see what's up both sleeves before accepting the
proposed contract.

The fact that they've made changes is not an issue. Not having time to
analyse the changes, is...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:57:59 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> Your statement is directly in line with the many other 
> participants who are 
> more concerned about the precise details of process than they 
> are about 
> making real progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.

We've been there and done that. Much of it at your urging. IMHO, the results
were less than satisfactory each time. 24-hour response requirement, over a
weekend, without external justification, stinks to high heaven. What else is
in there that we don't know about? We don't know because we haven't had the
time to look.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:59:55 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Function and quality of GA Chair- (was RE: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:38 AM

> Yes, personally, I feel any candidate that feels a need to "campaign"
> for the position is probably not the kind of candidate needed for that
> position.

Robert Heinlein said it best (paraphrased);

"The best candidate is one that has to be dragged, kicking and screaming,
into the job, but will do a good job once they are there."

We are fortunate to have at least one who fits that criteria... Roberto.

Our task; to find another such victi^H^H^H^H^Hcandidate. Lacking that, we
will settle for the outcome of an election from among those whom actually
want the job, until such time as we find one.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:12:11 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 8:29 PM

> Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it 
> was said in no 
> uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If 
> stakeholders had known 
> the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a 
> different set of 
> feedback may have been provided.

In business, there is no such thing as "non-negotiable". Similarly for
politicks.
It is only that suitable incentive needs to be made to open negotiations.

The way that this was handled leads me, ever more strongly, to keep the
status quo.
In my view, there is not enough incentive to negotiate.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 11:20 AM 4/2/2001, DPF wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:39:15 -0700, you wrote:
> >The tiny number of participants in ICANN discussions is not the whole
> >world. It is an extremely selective sampling.
>
>I was not referring to just people on mailing lists.  I agree it is
>unrepresentative.  I also refer to the almost entirely negative
>coverage in the media, the critical comments from Congress and also
>the first hand comments from people who have gone to ICANN meetings
>with absolutely no vested interests and come back shocked.

OK.  Let's consider your list:

With few exceptions, media reporting simply looks for controversy.  So what 
they report is essentially the same as what takes place in these public 
exchanges.  The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain 
whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any 
meaningful support.

Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few 
elected officials in Congress.  The best example of their careful, informed 
commentary came when one of them criticized Vint Cerf and ICANN saying that 
by not creating .kids ICANN was "inviting" the US Congress to pursue the 
matter of pornography.  The august representative was unaware of just how 
irrelevant .kids (and .xxx) are to matters of content regulation.

Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's 
difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious, 
both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with 
their supposed concern.

And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN 
meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to 
discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the 
meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested 
interest.

However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you 
cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is 
their understanding of serious operations administration for critical 
infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals 
with practical constraints?

d/

>I have a lot of respect for those who have put hard work into making
>ICANN work but I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
>that all criticism is wrong and ICANN could not be performing a lot
>better.

It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who 
has ever expressed such blinkered view.

The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal 
attacks, and focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it 
impossible to conduct serious, public discussion about serious, practical 
improvements.

>Ironically I still think overall ICANN Board has made more right than
>wrong decisions but it is not enough to merely be "okay" when with
>some common sense one could be "good".

Given the highly distorted history of mis-steps that ICANN inherited from 
the US government, and the thoroughly politicized pressure-cooker that 
ICANN lives in now, you should be astonished, impressed and delighted that 
it has forged anything even close to "okay".

> >Professionals make contractual decisions in minutes, not months.
>
>If it was merely contractual matters at issue one could agree.  But
>the issues of the proposed agreements and changes go beyond that.

No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive 
matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is 
a contract.

> >Since you are so concerned about process, I am sure that you will
> >appreciate the need for carefully attending to what people really say.
>
>I made my comments based on the totality of your comments in the last
>few months.

Since you attribute to me a position I do not hold and have not expressed, 
it is pretty clear that your assessment is based on something else.

> >This takes us directly back to the core fact that Verisign is running a
> >business and has no philosophical interest, and even less business
> >incentive, in the casual process that you want.
>
>Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
>negotiations for an extension.

1.  How do you know that?

2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public 
exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.

> >What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?
>
>Huge huge incentive.  If they are told not agreeing will increase the
>chance of the status quo remaining.

That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status 
quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is 
your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a 
horrible outcome to Verisign?

> >For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not
> >been doing it.
>
>The 19 NC members certainly have done so.

Actually, no they have not.  The NC had a lengthy, open session in 
Melbourne, during which they discussed Alternative B.  They spent the 
entire time complaining that they did not have enough time to consider the 
matter -- the document had, by then, been out for 2 weeks -- and they spent 
no time at all considering the content.

>It would have been proper
>IMO to give the NC a chance to comment on whether the last minute
>changes are in accordance with what they wanted.

You appear to believe that the DNSO is supposed to participate in contract 
negotiations.

They are not.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:25:20 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Que dump, sorry.

Please pardon the delay on the last batch of messages from me. Over the
week-end my Exchange server got stuck. When it became unstuck it released
the pending que (w/ todays date stamp). These are message that I wrote over
the weekend and some may no longer be relevent (especially since the BoD
already approved the contract changes). Simply be aware that the posting
dates are not exactly the dates that they were written. If this keeps up, I
may go back to sendmail <sigh>.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 05:49:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Website

Preliminary Report -- Special Meeting of the Board
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02apr01.htm

ICANN Announces Decision on Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr02apr01.htm

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:57:24 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] ICANN & other Major Corporations

Hey, I have a GREAT IDEA!

Every voting American Netizen could get in communication with their 
Government Representatives and help them understand:  1) The Internet, 
2)  The ICANN, 3)  The IETF.

This in and of itself would resolve most of our conflicts and keep this 
elite group of non-voted for participants from controlling the USG's 
root.  At that time we could begin to accomplish the original goals for 
establishing a group to help the USG maintain it's portion of the 
Internet.  We could have safety precautions that disallow appointment to 
the board of ANY participant so the decision making seats would be filled 
with the folks who had the most votes.

... gosh I sure hope I don't come off reading like a "cook"...

;)

~k

  Kristy McKee 612.823.2418
  .W I D G I T A L. project dev.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:34:04 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Would you clear up a few things here?

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
> OK.  Let's consider your list:
>
>
> Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> elected officials in Congress.

Those wold be Congressmen.  If they do not make comments from Congress who does?

>
> Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's
> difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious,
> both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with
> their supposed concern.
>

Their knowledge is only superficial as to what you deem important.  It is not
superficial when it comes to reading public support and the protecting the
publics' rights.

>
> And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> interest.
>

Where does you vested interest lie?

>
> However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you
> cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is
> their understanding of serious operations administration for critical
> infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals
> with practical constraints?
>

I gather you are saying you do not want anyone who is not frimly entrenched and
thinking along the same lines as you, having any impact, on matters such as the
Verisgn contracts. Do you have any examples where you approved of anyone balancing
practicality with ideals?

You then state;
"The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal attacks, and
focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it impossible to conduct
serious, public discussion about serious, practical improvements."

Would you mind stating which deatails are irrelevant?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:21:56 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 03:34 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> > elected officials in Congress.
>
>Those wold be Congressmen.  If they do not make comments from Congress who 
>does?

You do not know the difference between stating that something was from a 
person who is part of a group, versus that it was (formally) from the 
entire group?

No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult.

> > Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency...
>
>Their knowledge is only superficial as to what you deem important.  It is not
>superficial when it comes to reading public support and the protecting the
>publics' rights.

How does an utterly silly claim that ICANN is responsible for controlling 
pornography on the net serve to protect the public's rights?

> > And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> > meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> > discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> > meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> > interest.
>
>Where does you vested interest lie?

So, rather than provide the basis for your claim, you want to turn things 
elsewhere, such as raising personal questions about me?

> > However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you
> > cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is
> > their understanding of serious operations administration for critical
> > infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals
> > with practical constraints?
> >
>
>I gather you are saying you do not want anyone who is not frimly 
>entrenched and
>thinking along the same lines as you,

Eric, if you are going to distort what I say, please at least use what I 
say as the basis.

Better still, try to attend to the questions being posed.  You made some 
assertions and their basis was asked.

>You then state;
>"The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal 
>attacks, and
>focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it impossible to conduct
>serious, public discussion about serious, practical improvements."
>
>Would you mind stating which deatails are irrelevant?

an example, sure: the popular, irrelevant detail was about the management 
policies for .org.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:40:21 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:14 AM 4/2/2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:37:52AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the
> > separation
> > >of registry and registrar.
> >
> >1) There is no such policy.
> >
> >
> > >I do not think board and staff have the authority
> > >to do that without DNSO approval.
> >
> >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> >Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
>
> These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
>
> As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> the relevant fact, not theory.
>

Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided but
wrong.
Policy is about theory. The only factual basis that comes from  "legal
documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are not illegal) is the
fact that the document exists.  A document does not create a fact.

As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware that
just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The GA needs to
be more interested in what interested participants have to say and less on
historical facts which impede progress.  The GA is not to be dominated by,
technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or lobbyists.  It is a General
Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.

Sincerely,

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:58:25 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:34 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> > > elected officials in Congress.
> >
> >Those wold be Congressmen.  If they do not make comments from Congress who
> >does?
>
> You do not know the difference between stating that something was from a
> person who is part of a group, versus that it was (formally) from the
> entire group?
>

Wait a second here you just added the word formally and changed the meaning. Maybe
it would be more correct for you to say that you meant formally, then we could have
agreement.

>
> No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult.
>

Yes when you just change words in the middle of a discussion.

>
> > > Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency...
> >
> >Their knowledge is only superficial as to what you deem important.  It is not
> >superficial when it comes to reading public support and the protecting the
> >publics' rights.
>
> How does an utterly silly claim that ICANN is responsible for controlling
> pornography on the net serve to protect the public's rights?

One silly statement does not void a Congressman's goals and objectives. My statment
is correct, you are taking a specific and creating a generalization.
"No wonder careful, constructive discussion is so difficult."

>
> > > And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> > > meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> > > discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> > > meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> > > interest.
> >
> >Where does you vested interest lie?
>
> So, rather than provide the basis for your claim, you want to turn things
> elsewhere, such as raising personal questions about me?
>

I was pointing out that your criticism was solely theoretical in that we do not
know where peoples vested interests lie.

>
> > > However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you
> > > cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is
> > > their understanding of serious operations administration for critical
> > > infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals
> > > with practical constraints?
> > >
> >
> >I gather you are saying you do not want anyone who is not frimly
> >entrenched and
> >thinking along the same lines as you,
>
> Eric, if you are going to distort what I say, please at least use what I
> say as the basis.
>
> Better still, try to attend to the questions being posed.  You made some
> assertions and their basis was asked.

This was not my original thread I made no assertions here I only questioned your
dialogue with another member. But I do not see you answering any of my questions
just attacking me for asking them.

>
>
> >You then state;
> >"The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal
> >attacks, and
> >focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it impossible to conduct
> >serious, public discussion about serious, practical improvements."
> >
> >Would you mind stating which deatails are irrelevant?
>
> an example, sure: the popular, irrelevant detail was about the management
> policies for .org.

Let me try to explain why that was relevant.  Because people were worried about
it.  I know that may bother some, but it is a clear fact.  If something going on is
worrying members they should discuss it. Concern for people's stress and
perceptions may not be neat and tidy but it is part of a policy - contributing
body's job.

Sincerely,

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #337
************************