Re: PAB Opens Mailing List

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

Hi Kent,


At 09:53 PM 5/22/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 05:13:33PM -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>> While some people are trying to close
>> mailing lists...
>>
>> Apparently the PAB now has an readable
>> archive of their mailing list. Only the recent
>> entries are included.
>
>The PAB voted to open the list archive as of Jan 1.  This is
>relatively old news -- 


This might be old news to you, but it certainly is new
news to me.  More importantly, making a list archive 
readable is not the same thing as making a mailing list 
open.

One of the reason's that the Internet community desires
open and transparent processes is so that all sides in a 
controversy may have an equal opportunity to state their
position.  In other words, you are more likely to hear 
opposing points of view on an *open* list.

With this in mind, I would like to make some comments 
on your PAB report:  


Kent Crispin wrote:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00006.html . . .
>
>  Magaziner came on the scene with a serious strike against him -- he
>  badly botched the Clinton health care initiative, and, apparently,
>  he still has legal problems over that (or maybe it's just that
>  because of his legal problems he owes a lot of money -- I'm a little
>  fuzzy on this), and his reputation suffered a great deal -- rumor
>  has it that he has many enemies on Capitol Hill, and
>  psychologically, he was hoping to redeem his reputation by making a
>  big decisive splash in the internet. 


In case you'd forgotten, Magaziner came on the scene with a very
large feather in his cap.  He had just completed "A Framework for 
Global Electronic Commerce," a blue print that was extremely well
received in the US *and* Europe.


>  Given the controversy surrounding the MoU, Magaziner did not see any
>  strength there, or anywhere else for that matter.  So this looked
>  like an opportunity to put his stamp on things with a "Magaziner
>  Plan", which was the Green Paper.  [Many people believe that
>  Magaziner thought that CORE would fold up shop, the MoU would
>  disappear, and the "Magaziner Plan" would carry the day.  The fact
>  that POC and CORE did not just fold up and blow away is a real
>  tribute to the strength, will, and hard work of many people.  The US
>  Government can be a very formidible opponent.]
>
>  The negative international response made Magaziner realize that
>  there was a serious downside risk -- that of being known as the "man
>  who screwed up the internet".  For a person with a weak reputation
>  already this is a serious problem.  Rumor has it that Gore is aware
>  of this, and that he (Gore) is worried that Magaziner will screw
>  things up.  Serious political maneuvering internal to the White
>  House is taking place. 


Kent, you make it sound like Magaziner was waiting around twiddling
his thumbs until a political "opportunity" presented itself.  You go 
on to imply that Magaziner jumped into the DNS fracus for completely 
self-serving reasons.

I disagree.

In fact, most government types considered the DNS situation to be 
a "tar-baby", Washington speak for something that is sticky, messy,
and likely to smear anyone who touches it.

Magaziner is involved for the same reasons that the other members
of the Inter-Agency Task Force are involved -- because the MoU and
the POC/PAB/CORE plan were creating havoc in the Internet community.
And because it's their job!


Kent Crispin wrote:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00006.html . . .
>
>I produced a document which I submitted to the hearings held by the
>House Science Committee.  I also cc'd those comments to Becky Burr --
>you can see them at
>
>  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/04_07_98.htm
>
>if you haven't already.
>
>Interestingly enough, though the formal close of comments on the 
>green paper was March 23, there are many, many documents that have 
>been presented after that time, including a *very* large number of 
>email messages from Jay Fenello.


Kent, you make it sound like I am enjoying some kind of special
treatment.  

May I point out that the document you have referenced above was 
submitted on 04_07_98, well after March 23rd!  May I also point 
out that most of my "email messages" were actually sent to public 
lists first, and carbon copied to the USG second.  

My purpose has been to keep the USG informed on the latest 
developments in the DNS debate, and to offer a second opinion 
for information that I considered to be biased.

One example germane to this posting is at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/04_14_98.htm
I encourage everyone to read it.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com