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@tribalwise.com> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850