I'd also like to remind folks that secret deals are pretty tough to enforce
in the face of open meetings, open discussion, and the like. Even if you
believed (and I do not) that some nefarious plot was about to be hatched on
the evening of jan 21, what good would it do the plotters if they couldn't
keep the parties in line thereafter? ICANN will be looking at the SO
proposals as submitted, not at (nonexistent) secret deals behind them. The
accepted proposals will comprise the bylaws, membership criteria, voting
structures, review processes, etc. etc. that the SOs and their members (and
ICANN) will have to adhere to - with everyone watching.
I'm not saying that the whole world is squeaky-clean and bright, but we are
subjecting it to an awful lot of sunshine. Don't curse the darkness; come
shine a light.
Esther Dyson
At 05:52 AM 10/01/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>[cc: list edited]
>
>At 1/10/99, 01:15 AM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>>Einar Stefferud a écrit:
>>> So, we would appreciate it if you would belay your crusade of making
>>> false statements about what ORSC is or is not doing.
>>
>>I made no false statements. The ORSC is attending a closed meeting from
>>which the end-users and others have been excluded, after claiming to
>>repudiate closed processes. The ORSC has the choice to refuse to go and
>>demand that the meeting(s) in Washington be open. If you don't do this, it
>>must be because you are looking for your advantage, despite the fact that
>>others, myself included, are being denied the chance to participate.
>
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>Before I describe where I agree with you, let
>me describe where we disagree. You appear to
>believe that every single meeting in an open
>process must be open.
>
>I believe that there *can* be closed meetings
>in an open process, if they are part of a *fair*
>process. And while I expect to learn more about
>this closed meeting before it actually occurs,
>until I know otherwise, I will assume that it
>is part of a fair process. That's why I am
>currently planning on attending.
>
>With that said, I agree with your concerns
>about the process involved in the upcoming
>closed and open meetings.
>
>Michael, many of the leaders of Open-RSC have
>been involved in this debate a long time --
>we've seen games before, a lot of them.
>
>That's why I wrote the following inquiry on
>another distribution list (edited to protect
>private email status):
>
>
>At 1/8/99, 04:17 PM, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>
>>Since you've been through this, maybe you can
>>explain why XXXXX was offerred a role as a
>>"contributing organization," while BWG, ORSC,
>>the DNRC, etc. were not?
>>
>>This is a particularly interesting question,
>>given that XXXXXX was admittedly *not*
>>involved with the planning of this event.
>>
>>What exactly are you "contributing"?
>>
>>Jay.
>
>
>Remember, nine organizations are designated as
>a "contributing organization." Each of these
>organizations get to invite three people to a
>closed meeting. In turn, these attendees *can*,
>depending on the process rules for the closed
>meeting, impact the entire event.
>
>I don't believe that anything is going on here,
>but asking questions like this is required to
>keep the process honest.
>
>So, once again, I suggest that we give the
>meeting organizers a chance to describe their
>event. If there are problems with their process,
>we should be prepared to help them fix it. If
>their process is sound, then let's have a great
>meeting and get this DNSO off the ground.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com
High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"