Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO documents

Michael Sondow (msondow@iciiu.org)
Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:29:15 -0500


Joop Teernstra a écrit:

> The public pronouncements from those involved with the ORSC generate
> confidence that they will adhere to principles of openness and
> accountability in a way that the internet typically will make possible.

If the ORSC works openly, then I would be happy to participate. But
public pronouncements mean nothing. Everyone makes the same
pronouncements of openness, including DNSO.ORG and ICANN. I'll believe
it when I see it. That goes for DNSO.NET, DNSO.COM, or anyone else.

> Frankly I feel that it is you, Michael who has fallen in the trap that > I warned you for early on-- you have become a legitimising factor for > "the" DNSO without being able to exert any real influence on behalf of > those you say you represent.

First, I don't need you or anyone else to warn me about anything. I have
quite enough experience of life, undoubtedly far more than you, to make
up my own mind. I don't really see what provokes you to talk to me in
this condescending fashion, and it certainly doesn't predispose me to
pay attention to what you say. It is insulting to me, and will appear to
anyone who knows me as the bad reflection on your own character and
judgement that it is.

As far as my being used as a legitimizing factor goes, that is all that
most in this process have so far been capable of doing, with their
myopia and arrogant egotism. This includes the IFWP, the ORSC, ICANN,
and most every other group. I must accept and allow
that, up to a point, in order to get my views and opinions expressed.
But I don't equivocate these to please anyone. Many of my views are in
disagreement with the prevailing views of the original organizers of
DNSO.ORG, nevertheless I do not modify them in order to ingratiate
myself or for any other reason. I express my convictions, and defend my
constituency. The record of my postings and statements speaks clearly to
my honesty.

Regarding the Barcelona/Monterrey DNSO, I was, as I have said repeatedly
here, treated fairly and with respect. My views were listened to and
have, in my opinion, had an influence in favor of my constitutency, the
not-for-profit users of the Internet. Since the DNSO (dnso.org) is the
only forum where this has so far been possible, I naturally have a
commitment to pursue that channel. If another avenue opens up, I will
pursue it. But I will not leave off a constructive involvement with
players in this process for any promises, or for a participation in a
list or group where I am not treated with respect, or where the
legitimacy of the public sector is denied. I would be a fool to do so.

> I would believe in an SO that actively goes out to include consumer
> advocates, not as tokens that only need some ego-stroking to become > pliant, but with the full intention to include valid and reasonable > concerns of other stakeholders into policy frameworks.

So would I. Where is it? So far I have seen none except for the
DNSO.ORG, which has done what you say here, at least to some degree.
Something is more than nothing. It is a place to start.

Is the ORSC going to do this, after defining itself as an "Industry
Trade Association" (capitals Einar Stefferud's). It doesn't look too
likely, from my POV.

BTW, what Kent Crispin and others have said is perfectly true: Einar
Stefferud was given every opportunity to speak in Monterrey, more than
any other newly-arrived person. He made presentations and circulated his
papers freely among participants. He effected additions and changes to
the application and influenced voting. He cannot say, if he speaks
honestly, that the DNSO.ORG was not willing to include him and whomever
he represents. I had a chance to speak with Stef in Monterrey, and I
liked him and thought many of his ideas worthwhile. But I have to say,
even if it offends him, that he is grandstanding now just as he did
during the NewCo proposal period, only using the DNSO.ORG instead of the
BWG and IANA as a fall-guy. Everyone who was present in Monterrey sees
that. They aren't children. They aren't fooled.

I'll take the risk of going further, and telling you that most of the
Europeans, Latin Americans, and other non-United States participants in
Monterrey are more experienced in negotiations and compromise than
Americans, for the simple reason that they are forced all their life to
cohabitate in a restricted geographical space with other peoples, and
this makes them more acute observers and better judges of what
constitutes the legitimate activity of organization and
consensus-building. This is probably the reason that CORE and others
have gravitated towards a Euro-centric organization: it permits
intelligent discourse, which cannot occur in an environment where
uneducated and inexperienced persons have the arrogance to overrun those
who are better-informed or have better judgements. The United States has
become a country where only arrogance, and not intelligence or
experience, holds sway. That is not a useful environment for creating a
worldwide Internet organization. It is the central problem with the
present IFWP list, and with all organizations based in the U.S., and for
that matter anywhere in the English-speaking world where ignorance and
arrogance predominate. It is for this reason that Internet players from
around the world will be easier with the DNSO.ORG rather than the
DNSO.NET. No William Walshes will be at the meetings insisting that the
public sector doesn't exist. No Jeff Williamses are there to repeat
incessantly what others say. No Dave Crockers are present insulting
others with their nastiness. There is civil discourse, and without it no
DNSO or any other configuration can hope to gain support.