At 06:46 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
these are details of yet another cat fight into which icann has
wandered in its ever-unsatisfied desire for pool-pah.
Randy, are any of the other players in this bit of opera ever responsible
for creating the problems? Does it matter that such folk have no interest
in serious discussion and compromise?
Does it matter that we get assertions of fact that are proved wrong, are
then re-asserted and again proven to be wrong, only to THEN have someone
switch the topic and start blaming ICANN for pool-pah, whatever the heck it is?
In other words, does it matter that the only real public activity that
folks participate in with ICANN is to attack it. Sort of like you seem
inclined to do this week.
Do personnel matters matter? Should ICANN worry about protecting
them? (And, no, your glib reference to the them is not enough,
Randy. ICANN is faced with a Board member who is consistently and wholly
rogue. That creates a rather significant challenge, unless ICANN chooses
to act only after Karl causes whatever damage he can.)
Do contractual matters matter? Will living in a pure fishbowl affect
contracts? (Hint: The answer is yes.)
Given that nearly all the folks dealing with ICANN seem inclined either
towards hyper-politics or hyper-criticism, what are the chances that 100%
transparency will cripple what little is left of ICANN's ability to get any
work done at all. (Hint: The answer is 100%)
Or, perhaps, we all ought to remember that ICANN is supposed to pay some
attention to an activity of critical infrastructure and ought to be allowed
an occasional ability to focus on such matters.
And since you seem to be fond of citing Jon's method of managing that
infrastructure, perhaps you will take note that he balanced community
discussion with private discussion. He did not conduct all of that
oversight in a fishbowl.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850