Re: [ga] significant user representation

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Thomas,

--- Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You want the board or other interested parties to have a dialog here?
> Then I'd suggest treating people with respect and professionally and
> engaging them honestly with a real goal of searching for consensus,
> and increasing the overall level of shared understanding in this
> space.

Let's see, I asked you multiple questions in a polite and professional
manner, twice:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04598.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04622.html

that went unanswered. So, it's clear that you're not living up to your
own standard. When intelligent people are routinely ignored, as a modus
operandi, they'll learn from that and adjust their behaviour.

If I need to be more provocative to get the attention of non-responsive
people, I certainly will be more provocative. Others have learned the
same thing. Notice it only happens to people who are routinely
non-responsive, like Chuck or Jeff of Neustar. One can be provocative,
and stay within the boundaries of good taste, and I am certain I've
stayed within those boundaries -- most folks realize that I'm trying to
make them laugh (and I know people have sent kudos to me afterwards
giggling a lot at how I expressed a certain thought, with a certain
flair). :) Humour and wit are effective tools. They go back to ancient
Rome, even, when they'd make fun of politicians in street plays.
Certainly you've seen my three act play and other musical
entertainment:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04445.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04640.html 

:)

Ask yourself whether any Board members would have even read the
contract until *I* personally raised important issues about it. Those
issues were brought up respectfully with Vint directly in late July,
and I had to persist for more than 3 weeks, while General Counsel
stalled on a response. And when I finally got the answer, I made sure
to ask Vint to "go on the record", so I would not be putting any words
in his mouth, and had his express consent to publicize the official
interpretation ICANN provided. That's called respect.

Ask yourself whether any Board members, or even ICANN's incompetent
staff knew that the contracts, as written, permitted
differential/tiered pricing. That isn't the only problem with the
contracts, but it's a loophole you can drive a truck through. Jeff of
Neustar denied that the contract even allowed it. Is that contributing
"signal" to the debate, or "noise"?

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04293.html

Personally, I think he's smarter than he lets on, and his response was
a tactic. Otherwise, he'd have corrected  himself by now. I've
certainly given him many opportunities to do so, including amending the
contract to eliminate tiered pricing.

So, ask yourself whether you honestly have been living up to your own
words, or whether they are mere rhetoric. If you want to be part of a
dialog, start answering questions from time to time when they're asked
of you. This list doesn't need a nanny. A little give and take is all
it takes to ensure provocative words are not needed. Don't be arrogant
to think you're talking down to "us" as if we're children who are
misbehaving, when we're just doing our job, and doing it well. I don't
see you expressing shock that certain people are ignoring tough
questions routinely, irregardless of who asks them.

Years ago, I asked Chuck in a conference call during the WLS debate:
"Under what conditions would Verisign pull the proposal from the table,
given the huge opposition to it."  He had no answer.

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0205/0731.html

That's been his style literally for years. Perhaps you've not been
following things as closely as others have been, and didn't know any
better. Or, maybe you just want "peaceful dialogue" at any price, even
if that's to the advantage of the non-responders.

For those who aren't keeping track of things, has it occurred to you
that VeriSign is not treated with "kiddie gloves" because they're a
villain? Same with incompetent ICANN staff. Let's be frank, and not
mince words. Do you expect us to throw up softballs like:

"We really want SiteFinder back. What can we do, Chuck, to ensure that
this wonderful service is available to us once more??"

Of course not. I leave those kinds of questions to ICANN staffers who
are routinely not reflecting the interest of the public. Folks like me,
though, throw up the tough questions, because it's the duty of
superheroes (and superheroines!) to oppose the villains. We're firm,
but fair.

We all have a role to play. Some of us have to wake up each morning
knowing that they're representing villians. That must burn a hole in
their soul over time. Others have to decide when they wake up whether
they are going to wear the suit of Clark Kent, or put on the cape of
Superman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman

:)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/