Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
Evidently you have not had the pleasure of trying to conduct a
constructive dialogue with someone who has no interest in constructive
dialogue.
Instead, such folk look only for reasons to attack you. They distort
what you say. They find conspiracy theories to explain your actions,
independent of the facts. And so on.
I can believe that all of this happens.
However, ICANN has now been found to be engaging in illegal activity to
obstruct the ability of an independent director to perform his oversight
responsibilities. This has been established in a court of law.
That, as far as I'm concerned, pretty much puts a period at the end of the
argument. ICANN is wrong. End of story. If they want to salvage
reputation after this, they're going to need to start *apologizing* for
their actions really fast, not trying to put some sort of Polyanna PR spin
on it in public fora.
Thank you for validating my characterization of the kinds of people
ICANN must deal with.
I had no opinion at all of ICANN for a very long time. I'm generally in
favor of single-root DNS. I think that any organization like ICANN is
going to have a very tough time of it.
I then started seeing more and more outlandish statements from ICANN
insiders. Statements directly from them, not statements from their
opposition. From that, I started developing a slowly more negative
opinion of ICANN.
Now this. Now I have about the same opinion of ICANN that I have of any
other organization that uses illegal tactics to obscure the public
accountability of the organization. And until I see a non-weaseling
apology and a clear change of direction from ICANN, that will likely
continue to be my opinion of them.
If this issue were really as minor as some ICANN defenders have claimed,
they would have made the whole thing go away many months ago. That the
issue was apparently important enough to argue at this length in court
indicates to me that statements belittling its significance are quite
likely simple lies.
I'm still watching and listening and if someone can present evidence that
the legal decision was actually wrong, I can of course still change my
mind. But the arguments presented on this mailing list by yourself and by
Vint Cerf are not doing that; rather, they are further cementing my
negative opinions of the organization.
You have absolutely no reason to care one whit what I think of ICANN, as
I'm a complete nobody in both the IETF and Internet operations world. So
I'll go back to lurking now. But really, if you're going to defend an
organization, please provide a real defense rather than circular
reasoning. I would like to see more light cast on the argument, but
circular defenses are pure heat.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>