RE: [alac-admin] [Fwd: [alac] VeriSign Statement]
Vittorio,
It's worth noting that I don't have a vote here. I'll give you my input and
you can accept it, reject it, modify it, whatever you want. If the ALAC
votes to approve something, it's the statement of the ALAC, not the person
who drafted it. As a committee, we can hardly agree on what time to break
for lunch. It's hard for me to believe that any single input into the
process could unduly persuade the ALAC members to vote a certain way.
Also, my views on this haven't changed one bit since my law firm was
retained. In fact, I suspect that one of the reasons I was an acceptable
choice for the litigatoin was because I was already public in my opposition.
I hadn't even talked to these folks before two weeks ago. From my
perspective, nothing has changed.
On the substance, I think the self-interest point is a fair one. No, I don't
believe that ICANN Board members were trying to find money for *themselves*,
but I do believe they valued *ICANN's* self-interest (increasing ICANN's
budget and protecting ICANN's status) above the interests of the users in a
competitive marketplace. The evidence of this is the Board's Joint
Statement, the transcipt, and the terms of the settlement itself.
Bret
-----Original Message-----
I am concerned by this email thread.
I have no doubt that the ICANN Board did not do the right thing -
especially from a registrant's point of view - in accepting the settlement.
At the same time, I am uncomfortable, from a formal standpoint, in
having the ALAC statement on the matter drafted by a lawyer whose law
firm has just been hired by the "Coalition for ICANN Transparency" to
sue the ICANN Board on this very matter. No matter how good the
statement could be and how much we all esteem Bret, our statement could
easily be challenged for this simple reason.
I am even more uncomfortable if the proposed language seems to imply
that the ICANN Board took that decision for "self-interest" and money,
rather than for what it thought to be the public good, and for the
reasons it publicly stated. I think that this might be interpreted as
defamation. I would not presume that I know the reasons why someone else
took a decision, unless I have concrete evidence to that purpose. We can
state and support our opinions in a convincing way without suggesting
other people's lack of integrity.
However, I am also uncomfortable in discussing a statement that heavily
(and deservedly) criticizes the ICANN Board and management, and see it
challenged by a member of the ICANN staff.
Perhaps we should defer this matter to face to face discussions in
Wellington? That might help to establish a more positive climate.
--
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
Attachment:
smime.p7s
|