ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    ICANN Staff and Structure Pesky Response to Stuart Lynn Proposal
    posted by michael on Sunday February 24 2002, @03:54PM

    Mikki writes " Pesky Response to President?s Reform Proposal I thought I would save everyone a bit of time by translating the paper, paragraph by paragraph, into what it really means."







    ICANN has failed. We wanted everyone to fall into line voluntarily, but they aren't doing so, despite all of the threats of governmental takeover starting from Ira Magaziner during the IFWP and continuing almost weekly ever since.

    After three years, the ccTLDs still won't give us money, the RIRs basically ignore us, and most others already understand that we are largely irrelevant unless we're going beyond our mandate to make policies that they like.

    So, without doing what we threatened to do (government takeover), because you guys refused to get along with each other (yes, this is all YOUR fault), we are going to do what we threatened to do (government takeover) only worse. We are turning this over to governments AND staff.

    We measure success based upon whether or not we can pay our Jones Day bills. Although many companies who thought they could get special favors from us (and in fact did) now they have realized that we can't do much more for them since Congress and the DOC are breathing down our necks. They got their UDRP so now they aren't giving us any more money.

    In addition, the USG bashed Verisign over the head until they signed a contract with us. The Australians forced us to deal with the GAC, by providing funding which we count as a plus for ICANN even though we've always said that the GAC wasn't really a part of ICANN at all and just advisory (wink wink). Japan, Canada and the EU have put up with us, but that's just not enough.

    So, ICANN has fallen short of expectations. We made certain to disallow those pesky users we were required to allow to participate under the White Paper, while simultaneously complaining we didn't get enough participation. Of course, the real lack of participation we were requiring is the ccTLDs (and their money). I must also complain in the same paragraph, about ICANN's pre-occupation with "process and participation." Those horrible distractions to our true mission caused us to actually spend money we could have given to Jones Day on such things as the MAC and the ALSC reports. The "big guys" won't give us any money because we still allow people to speak their minds. This distraction must be eliminated so we can really get things done.

    So, like I said, without doing what we've been threatening (government takeover) we will implement government takeover.



    The rest of the paper was taken up with every possible excuse besides "Blame Canada." Like a corrupt French Ice Skating Judge, the excuse changes with the target of the minute. However, there have been absolutely hilarious charges made, specifically that ICANN had "too much process." Simultaneously, not enough process was claimed regarding governmental participation. While complaining about the complicated organizational structure, Stuart then goes on to say that ICANN needs to build government-like institutional foundations." Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "government-like institutional foundations" the most fraught with Byzantine organizational structures, even greater than what ICANN is right now?

    Sims, I mean Stuart Lynn goes on to say that if the people he's appointed can't find a consensus, none exists. Interesting to say while completely disregarding all previous consensus points that HAD been agreed upon prior even to the creation of ICANN. However, that notwithstanding, the at-large must be squashed so that they can focus on the "real work" that can likely only take place in secret without those pesky users and squabbling public policy types.

    Astoundingly enough, Lynn "believes strongly in ICANN's core values of openness and participation" after just saying that the At Large must be crushed. Then he attacks that highly annoying reconsideration process as yet another distraction. The requests were "frivolous," the Review Panel adds to the "waste."

    Lynn complains loudly about those horrible ccTLDs not wishing to pay the "appropriate share of the burden." The ccTLDs are likely the ONLY entities who truly understand that ICANN is irrelevant to their business models or their technical needs. Their example is one that should be followed. It is astounding that Lynn can be so blatantly blind to perhaps the truest reason for ICANN's financial shortfalls - namely bills from Jones Day. A close second is the cost of the ICANN world tours, at insanely expensive venues whose lack of facilities are then blamed as good reasons for further eliminating participation even via webcasts. Closely third are the expenses for Andrew McL to jet to foreign countries as ICANN spokesmodel. All travel, of course, is business class, all hotels five star, all meals highly expensive, etc,. It is obscenely ludicrous that they would then complain that the At Large is just too expensive. Imagine, a public benefit corporation funded partially by our tax dollars (because they are a tax exempt corporation) that excludes the public at every possible turn.

    Another quite interesting claim is that that pesky US Government and those pesky Americans will interfere with "long-term global stability." How ironic. Taiwan didn't decide to run their own root because of US Government participation. They did so because they did not wish to deal with ICANN's nonsensical regulations and rantings. The ccTLDs are not refusing to "play ball" with ICANN because of US Government participation, but instead because of ICANN's policies and desires for huge amounts of funding to pay Jones Day and ICANN's travel agents.

    But again, the most ridiculous and laughable claim for the necessity of ICANN's "restructuring" to eliminate all of those pesky people and ideas is once again the boogieman of "alternate roots" and collapse of "essential infrastructure" with a weak ICANN. The very thought that non-technical bureaucrats are protecting the infrastructure of the Internet made me laugh so loudly that my dog became alarmed. The only technically inclined individuals who have even the semblance of a clue within ICANN are Karl Auerbach and Andrew Mueller-Maguhn (both ironically elected from that pesky At Large) and Vint Cerf who is wholly owned and operated by ISOC and Worldcom. Their new technical employee, Kent Crispin is the architect of the fatally flawed interface to the voting structure that is now blamed for improper results. Yet another fairy tale ending.

    So to fix the part that is not broken and break the part that needs fixing, that government intervention we were all threatened with is now supposed to save the day. For only governments can really decide best who should be on the ICANN board. Amazing that it only took three years to figure this all out. And don't forget....never forget....that this is all (including the directive from Stuart Lynn) "bottom up" consensus (oh, except of course we must always remember that Jon Postel's process creation was not open or transparent... But that's not important right now except to justify ICANN's newly found closed, I mean open, opaque, I mean transparent method of springing ideas fully formed on all but the initiated and special (and definitely not pesky) Board members like some sort of Athena on acid.

    As I paraphrase Tony Rutkowski, let's pull the life support, kiss them on the forehead, and watch ICANN expire with appropriate DNR orders. After all, anything else might be too "pesky."

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • GAC
  • the paper
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Pesky Response to Stuart Lynn Proposal | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 17 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Pesky Response to Stuart Lynn Proposal
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday February 24 2002, @07:41PM (#5043)
    User #2810 Info
    In case anyone is keeping score, yer resident net prophet hits another bullseye here, earlier here, and I could go on. Instead I'll point to how this will most likely (even Nostradamus hedged his bets) all turn out, my prophecy here.

    ICANN has pinned on a badge declaring itself Internet Sheriff and then rode out into the sun never thinking that that glint makes a helluva target in the light of reason. The concept of the internet was built, largely voluntarily, through collaboration: rough consensus and running code. By setting themselves up to succeed, the powerbrokers and spinmeisters failed to grasp the concept that that also makes them a single point of failure, a stunning faux pas for an organization that spent its most recent annual meeting supposedly learning about the security and stability of the internet.

    I used to bemoan the lack of cohesion within the opposition to ICANN's status quo. It turns out that that may be its greatest strength. Like the internet, a distributed, non-hierarchical structure is very difficult to destroy, its antithesis has now, for reasons best known to itself (if at all), chosen a flat earth old-world model in the hope it will allow them to be first to circumnavigate the globe. The sight of them being eaten by their own imaginary sea monsters will be a blunder to behold. Rejoice, the fun has just begun. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Where did my comment go? (Plus some thoughts on m
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Monday February 25 2002, @11:11AM (#5068)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    I've moderated down one contribution to this thread on the grounds of personal invective. It is not deleted. Readers wishing to see it should adjust their reading 'threshold' above to -1. Other comments may be treated similarly in the future.

    All posters are requested to play nice.

    I do not currently plan to down moderate the repetitive and relatively content-free comments cloned in this and related stories, nor the equally cloned replies. I note, however, that they don't have a whole lot of reasons, and are being repeated in comments to several stories. Subject to consultation with the other editors, this hands-off policy might change if they become overly repetitive in a given story; at that point they amout to a type of denial of service attack.

    FYI, in general I personally tend to cut more slack to signed, or even 'nymed, comments than anonymous comments.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Pesky Response to Stuart Lynn Proposal
    by hofjes on Monday February 25 2002, @07:44AM (#5049)
    User #60 Info
    If governments are going to run the Internet, then the United States government should put the ICANN functions in an administrative agency bound by due process and the constitution. The agency could accept input from governments around the world, but the rights of those on the Internet would no longer be subject to ICANN's arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported decision making. Instead, the agency would be required to follow the rule of law.

    The FTC must file a lawsuit to go after a party alleged to be committing consumer protection violations. Accordingly, the accused has a right to defend itself in court. ICANN, on the other hand, can rightfully take away a ccTLD without real justification, and without giving the accused (e.g., Robert Elz) the right to defend.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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