| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Reform Plans
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
No, it's not just you, though comparing him to Crispin and Crocker is out by orders of magnitude. I've noticed that Bret from time to time seems a bit slow on full disclosure, but that's a concept Crispy Crock wouldn't recognize if they found it in their cereal. I'm a bit peeved about this and this, for example. I mean, who the hell cares if the applicant wants to give excess funds to charity? Is it better to pay top management obscene salaries? Is it better to be like NeuLevel and have the CEO hire a relative to do fancy interior decorating? Is it better to be like Veri$ign and spend it on campaign contributions? If, and I know it's a big if, the successful .org bidder can charge less wholesale than Veri$ign does for comnet, and still show a profit, and then choose to put some of that profit into good works, where's the harm? No harm, no foul. Full disclosure: I have zero personal or financial interest in any .org bid. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re: Fausett
by fnord
|
|
|
|
|
|
the issue of "good works" is another example of the ICANN Board playing the "stability card" when it sees fit to do so. But, they did so prior to the filing deadline and, in a competitive bid process, can only be expected to be brought to light by those applicants that adhered to those that did not. Whether the few people that run the Board have any place dictating business decisions on the part of the registry management team (as part of their responsibility of delegation) is an entirely different fairy tale. In this regard, they continue to not learn from past mistakes.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
> comparing him to Crispin and Crocker is out by orders of magnitude.
I'm not sure I agree. With Crispy-Crocker you know what you're getting and why.
Recent postings on the ICANN Blog afford ICANN a stamp of approval from a perceived source of unbiased constructive criticism, which is much more insidious if in fact its neither unbiased nor constructive.
Bret recently mentioned on the Blog that the DotOrg Foundation is one of his consulting clients.
I don't know if Bret is merely providing advice or actively lobbying on DotOrg's behalf, but it certainly would not be in DotOrg's best interests if one of its associates were a vocal ICANN critic.
I'm not questioning Bret's veracity, but even if he's only pushing the Rose-Colored-Glasses-envelope, the clarity of the ICANN Blog is compromised.
IMHO.
Judith
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re: Fausett
by lextext
Monday June 24 2002, @08:12AM
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
