Re: [ga] Sorry, ... we can't discuss this in public

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

Excellent comments and remarks from you also Richard.  However
you should not be surprised that the now defunct gTLD constituency and
one Dan Holoran respond to you questions but rather was fearful of doing
so as he had no legitimate answers at the time to you questions which I
remember well.  Instead he took you questions as attack in that he
did not like the manner in which you couched them.  To bad I say.
Hence however the ONLY response you did get from Dan was the
one you provided below which was deflectionary in nature, thereby
confirming that .BIZ and .INFO registries are indeed illegitimate at
best.  He knew this as did the than seated ICANN BoD.

As for Paul, I also have to agree with your british evaluation though
I am an american.  Not responding at all is rude and inconsiderate.
After all in part and in his own words he is pro openness and transparent
yet displays the opposite.  This also seems to me and our members to
be far less than honest.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> To be fair to Vint, I have always found him responsive... I don't agree with
> all his views and I think he can be methodically 'vague' a lot of the time,
> but at least he does reply.
>
> In contrast, Paul Twomey - who arrived at ICANN proclaiming the need for
> greater openness and responsiveness - has never once replied to a single
> e-mail I have sent him (and I've probably sent him around 20). Call me
> old-fashioned but here in the UK we would regard that as just plain
> discourteous. Even a simple acknowledgment of receipt would be something.
>
> But Vint almost always replies to me, and that has meant I am more prepared
> to listen to him and at least think through his comments and opinions - he
> does not run away from open dialogue.
>
> Equally I think Michael Palage has been open to dialogue on various
> occasions.
>
> But I would agree that, institutionally, ICANN's approach to dialogue has
> been disgraceful, amounting to a deliberate policy of keeping difficult or
> dissenting voices at arm's length from their processes.
>
> That is the whole reason for the creation of ALAC: to keep (awkward)
> individual internet users at arms length by banning them from membership,
> and marginalising the challenge of the At Large, allowing its forums to
> become graveyards. ALAC was created to project a semblance of user
> involvement, while locking individual users out of its processes. The
> result: disenchantment and a moribund shell of the real At Large.
>
> It was the same with the development and processes of the New TLDs
> Evaluation run by Sebastian Bachollet: there was no open forum during the
> production of his report, no posting of views, timescales and developments.
> Just a "closed" receipt of opinions from selected individuals and months
> later... plonk... the report was presented. People were simply locked out -
> prevented from developing and discussing ideas in any ICANN webspace during
> the drafting of the report.
>
> To illustrate Danny's point further, a while back I posted some comments on
> the gTLD constituency forum (now dead). I was raising relevant questions
> about the way ICANN's Agreements with the registries had been flouted with
> impunity in a number of cases. I'd already raised the same issues with Dan
> Halloran (who had responsibility for ICANN's interface with the DNS industry
> at the time) but in a period of over 2 years, and despite repeated requests,
> he never so much as acknowledged my mail. I hoped for discussion on the gTLD
> forum.
>
> I received this reply from the head of one of the Registries:
>
> "Richard,
>
> This message is only intended for you. Your message is exactly what scares
> the other members of the constituency away from wanting such an open list.
> Unfortunately, your gripes about the activities of .biz or .info it is not a
> 'constituency issue.'...  I am trying to make a difference here and it
> becomes impossible with messages like yours.
>
> Think about it, why would you join a debate when you know that no matter
> what you say, no matter what you do, right or wrong, you will get bashed by
> the public.
>
> As a prison warden yourself, let me give you an analogy.  Would you get into
> a prison cell with a prisoner that you know would beat the crap out of you
> once you took a step inside (even if you were the nicest of all wardens and
> you tried to do everything that you believed was right).  The answer is I
> would think not.
>
> Same concept here."
>
> I think Danny Younger is correct in his analysis that public comment and,
> even more so, a public constituency of registrants or internet users, is
> something that ICANN fears. It's all about "control". The elected
> representatives of the At Large were expelled from the ICANN Board for just
> that reason, in my opinion: because they presented the ICANN establishment
> with something which was hard to manage - the concept of divergent views and
> open and responsive dialogue.
>
> Paul Twomey said he wanted more dialogue and greater responsiveness.
>
> He has never replied to a single mail I've sent him.
>
> Work it out for yourself...
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard Henderson
> www.atlarge.org

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827