Re: [ALSC-Forum] Esther Dyson's SF Gate article

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all stakeholders,

  I stand corrected.  Yes it was only ONE book, thankfully...  >;)

Esther Dyson wrote:

> amazing, since I wrote only one book!
>
> Esther
>
> At 07:34 14.06.01, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Thomas and all stakeholders,
> >
> >Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > > Alexander Svensson pointed out to me that www.atlargestudy.org has a
> > > somewhat hidden link to an article of Esther Dyson, "Challenges for
> > > domain managers", which is available
> > >
> > here:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/27/BU171918.DTL&type=printable>
> >
> >   This is one of several of Esthers "Writings".  Rather disjointed in
> > it's presentation.
> >And pretty much follows her line of thinking for her other disjointed
> >"Writings"
> >as well.  I have read two of Eshters books (Not top ten sellers to be sure).
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In this article, Esther gives a short outline of the Committee's
> > > work, and tells the reader about some ideas on what user
> > > participation in ICANN may look like.  She writes that "what ICANN
> > > needs ultimately is the equivalent of political parties.  Perhaps a
> > > No New TLDs party, [more examples]". These parties should then
> > > organize themselves, "without permission or direction from ICANN".
> >
> >    This is one place where I agree with Esther.  However it doesn't seem to
> >match another part of this same "Writing" of hers.  To wit: "ICANN still
> >faces new challenges, among them
> >New.net, a private company that is end-running ICANN's domain
> >name system with a somewhat incompatible approach. If ICANN does its job
> >right, it will prevail on the basis
> >of a more attractive system, not on the basis of its own limited
> >powers."
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Esther then notes that this approach would of course be an
> > > experiment, "but a marketplace for ideas is a lot better than one
> > > for people", she says.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering how this construction fits with current official ICANN
> > > "theology", according to which the board is mostly executing
> > > consensus achieved within the supporting organizations, which are
> > > supposed to actually make policy.
> > >
> > > Doesn't a markeplace for ideas - which is ultimately used for the
> > > selection of board members - at the same time imply that still more
> > > policy should be handled at the board level, not at the SO level?
> >
> >   No I don't think so.  And the White Paper as well as  the MoU
> >also are not in agreement with this sort of policy making process,
> >Thomas.  Yet we see the ICANN BoD making policy in this manner
> >in direct conflict with the White Paper and the MoU.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't the original design of ICANN _require_ a marketplace for
> > > people for the nomination of directors, in order to gather the
> > > necessary expertise on the board?
> >
> >   Yes it does.  Yet this piece is still missing, and no funds have been
> >set aside for the next @large election.
> >
> > >  Doesn't it, in fact, require the
> > > directors _not_ to pursue just their own ideas and interests, but
> > > what's best for the community, and what's the community's consensus?
> >
> >   Yes it does.  Yet again the ICANN BoD especially while Esther
> >was the COB, doesn't and did not do this at all...  So one has to wonder
> >what her real motives are, and how she could be really and independent
> >member of this committee now...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that I don't think that Esther's ideas are bad just because
> > > they seem to contradict ICANN's original design.  I'm just wondering
> > > what kind of design is actually more practicable, and which one is
> > > better in terms of transparency, accountability, and creating the
> > > best results.
> >
> >   Transparency by definition really requires openness, as does accountability
> >for the most part.  The MoU provides for this openness, yet from almost the
> >beginning the ICANN BoD has yet to be open to any and all "Interested
> >Parties" as the White Paper and the MoU require.  As such, the ICANN
> >BoD and yes, Esther Dyson as well, are not and have not been in
> >compliance with their contractual requirements to date and made/imposed
> >policy that has greatly effected a huge number of stakeholders and future
> >stakeholders.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you folks think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
> PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208