Re: [ga] Strong Arm Tactics

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is important that we see a lie. It is impossible that this man has not seen what he claims to have not seen. But perhaps it is more important that he relies upon the structure of ICANN to have not made this .net thing public so that he can set himself in a cloak of ignorance.
Openness and transparency is a new (or is it knew) watchword that we must damn well live with and this man is belonging in 1960s era North Korea. Strong Arm Tactics are often masked in the guise of ignorance. A man who speaks softly probably has no conviction.
 
Eric


Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Michael and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

The real war as you have decided to make your argument in military
terms which is somewhat disturbing in and of itself, is accountability.
ICANN must become directly accountable to any and all interested
stakeholders/users in any and every aspect. Sense ICANN's inception
and even before you became involved Michael I have called for as
have all of our members and stakeholders/users around the world
have as well, that any policy, practice and the ICANN BoD or
any other ICANN "Official" be directly accountable to the
stakeholders/users. Sense ICANN's very beginnings, it has not
been accountable, nor has it's Board members ect. Hence, ICANN
has delved into many "Mission Creeps" and mishandled it's financial
affairs on more than one well known occasion...



Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Until I see the proposed .NET contract which has not yet been posted,
> I will
> withhold any detailed comment. However, I believe you raise a very
> valid
> question, and I share your concern about ICANN adopting different
> standards
> to treat similarly situated parties.
>
> One of the reasons I made ICANN 's Strategic Plan Process a key focus
> of my
> efforts in a potential second term, is that during my many years
> involved in
> the ICANN process I have seen people focus all their efforts to win a
> single
> battle, while unbeknownst to them they were actually losing the bigger
> war.
> As I stated previously, I share your concerns about the apparent
> arbitrariness of the .75 cent in connection with other similarly
> situated
> gTLD registries. I believe questions needs to be asked when a
> draft/final
> contract is posted.
>
> I believe the common concern we share is making sure that ICANN does
> not
> stray from its core mission and values. A natural downward pressure to
>
> inhibit mission creep is a limited budget. However, since there is
> nothing
> that would prevent ICANN from imposing this .75 cent on all gTLD
> registries,
> would it not be in the best interest to win the war ("preventing ICANN
>
> mission creep") to focus on meaningful input/enforcement mechanisms
> with
> regard to the Strategic Plan?
>
> Best regards,
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com