|
Navigation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
See
Also
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Archives
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All the news that's... whatever. Welcome to Random Bytes...
|
|
Yellow Kids II Sincere apologies that this followup took so long - I didn't expect to be continuously occupied for this length of time. Also note that I would normally try and link some of the references directly in this entry, but given that my website doesn't exist in the PRC, most of the references that I want to link to are also inaccessible. :( [Author's Note: I was only able to post and publish this article after I returned to Canada. More on my networking problems later, but suffice to say that I have had the chance to annotate some of the references below that I wasn't able to while in PRC. Due to laziness, I've left the opening paragraph as initially written ;)] Shortly after I wrote my criticism of the sensational tendencies that I perceive as being threaded through most of the editorial published on ICANNWatch, Michael Froomkin, an ICANNWatch editor, replied to me with these comments; "I think your blog comments about my .su item are quite unfair for several reasons: 1. The wired article is public - I just cited to it and quoted from it and linked to it (much as you did); in fact I do call or e-mail people for personal comments when I add something about them to what's published elsewhere (e.g. I've emailed Twomey and am waiting for him to reply or not before going with one about him). But I don't when just linking/summarizing existing public content. 2. I didn't say 'it's a done deal'. Kindly quote the part of the item that says that. I did say, and belive, that that IANA-under-ICANN has no process for public debate prior to decision, and to date there's never been one on any of its decisions. Please cite to one so far. And, as you yourself noted, it's not on the offical agenda for Shanghai. In any case, given passport requirements etc, adding things to the agenda now does not allow interested parties to decide to attend. 3. Did you call or write me before running your item? How does that fit your vision of ethics? You're welcome to quote the above in full." For the record, I just wanted to note that my initial comments were perhaps rather harsh - for this, I apologize. But I'm still a long way from agreeing with the editorial policy and political tactics of ICANNWatch. While they have a tradition of honing in on some extremely central issues that need the attention of the community. They also have a tendency to do this in an extremely sensational manner. Michael raises some pretty important points in his response that I'd like to address. I'm not sure that we will ever completely see eye-to-eye on this issue - largely because I'm "insulting his children". First, I'm not sure that I completely buy his first explanation above. There is a big difference between "citing, quoting and linking" and the editorial drive-by shooting that Michael engaged in. When accusations as serious as the ones that Michael raised are included in *any* publication, there *is* an expectation that one will hear both sides of the story. Citing, quoting and linking doesn't come with this same expectation. This needs to be as true for community forums like ICANNWatch as it is for the New York Times editorial pages. This was the integrity that I referred to. I imagine that there is a certain expectation of balance and fairness that ICANNWatch readers expect - I know that I do. Penning one-sided stories that don't take both sides of the story into account are completely "aproductive". Concerning point #2, the real thing that set me off were his contentions that this was a matter that the board would decide behind closed doors. This is what I referred to when I mentioned the "done deal" that he had blogged. I really expect that this will first be addressed, in-band, by the IANA function. Only if they are unable to resolve it amicably will this hit the board agenda. IANA is a staff function run according to pre-existing policies. There's nothing new about this and in fact, has been run this way since day one. When new policies need to be created, that is when the community gets it's say. I'm not sure that IANA can function in the manner that Michael seems to be advocating. I submit that it would be impossible and useless to consult with the general community when making decisions of this nature. On the other hand, consultation with the local community is imperative - but really of no concern to anyone not directly involved. Does IANA need improvement? For sure - some excellent suggestions have been tabled during a number of discussions over the last three days here in Shanghai that I really believe will be implemented in a meaningful way, to varying degrees over the next 12 to 18 months. And finally, we're not talking about ethics here - my reference to integrity was a reference to the soundness, the uprightness of his arguments, which I still maintain are sorely lacking. Without seeking to present a reasoned view of both sides of the story, ICANNWatch editorial will continue to resemble that of the National Enquirer, or worse. Bob Alberti suffers from a similar condition. I think his is terminal however. Given that he is the president of a network security consulting company, it strikes me that it would be useful if his potential clients had an ingrained fear of anything Internet because of a perception of instability embedded in the system - I can see the billable hours stacking up now. And to make it even worse, I read the article to discover that one of the father's of the gopher protocol really lacks clue in some pretty significant areas. Why doesn't the Internet use more than 13 root servers? Hmm...here's a hint Bob: UDP. This type of behavior seems to be a growing trend. While I would never advocate that we should cease being critical of ICANN - this is of the utmost importance, but rather that we need to ensure that the criticism is reasonable, constructive and fair. It is much easier, and is certainly the human tendency, to destroy things rather than create them or work to improve them. And I, for one, are growing increasingly frustrated by those that will not work for positive improvement. The alternatives currently in front of us are less than palatable. |
© Copyright 2003 Ross Wm. Rader. The opinions expressed in this weblog are solely those of the respective authors.
Last update: 1/27/2003; 11:22:35 PM.