Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:39:15 -0700, you wrote:

>At 11:52 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>Oh please.  You wave every single complaint about ICANN away as
>>unjustified whinging and never ever seem to wonder if there is a
>>reason for it.  Do you really think the whole world is wrong all the
>>time?
>
>Please consider the perspective of your comments.
>
>The tiny number of participants in ICANN discussions is not the whole 
>world. It is an extremely selective sampling.

I was not referring to just people on mailing lists.  I agree it is
unrepresentative.  I also refer to the almost entirely negative
coverage in the media, the critical comments from Congress and also
the first hand comments from people who have gone to ICANN meetings
with absolutely no vested interests and come back shocked.

I have a lot of respect for those who have put hard work into making
ICANN work but I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
that all criticism is wrong and ICANN could not be performing a lot
better.  

>As to wondering why there is so much whining, indeed I often do, though you 
>will not be surprised that my assessment for the reason(s) is quite 
>different from yours.  Please see 
><http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/> for some of my 
>perspective, notably 
><http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/sld009.htm>.

Thanks - an interesting presentation.  I agree partially with you.  Of
course there will always be people unhappy with ICANN no matter how
good a job it does.  The alternate root community is an obvious one.

But just because there will always be some criticism is no reason to
dismiss all criticism or not be able to be concerned about the amount
of it.  My local ccTLD used to have such an attitude and got a nasty
shock when to be blunt the AGM sacked the entire board of the company
and all bar one of the Councillors due up for re-election.

I probably shouldn't say this but 6 - 12 months ago I regarded the
"loyal opposition" to ICANN as not quite just the crazies but not far
off.  I used to think Michael Froomkin was merely some pompous
unrealistic academic (sorry Michael :-) and like you (whom I used to
agree with a lot as a lurker) I had the attitude lets just get on with
things and damn those who try and get in the way.

My view on ICANN has changed massively and this is rare for me as a
conservative creature.  As I have had more time to read posts, read
stories, peruse background documents and observe ICANN meetings
(remotely) I have grown more and more alarmed.  There are IMO real
problems with ICANN structure, communications, processes and some
decisions.

Ironically I still think overall ICANN Board has made more right than
wrong decisions but it is not enough to merely be "okay" when with
some common sense one could be "good".

As I said previously to Kent, when you are having people with no
vested interests who used to be ICANN supporters get more and more
disillusioned with how ICANN is operating then it is time to wonder if
things should be changed.

>>I have said the concessions are welcome but the fact concessions have
>>been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
>>manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
>>irreversible effects.
>
>Thank you for noting the need for professionalism.  Unfortunately your 
>assessment of relvant behavior is quite simply wrong.
>
>Professionals make contractual decisions in minutes, not months.

If it was merely contractual matters at issue one could agree.  But
the issues of the proposed agreements and changes go beyond that.  

Anyway the argument is moot now as the decision has been made.  

>>You also do a dis-service by suggesting that all complaints re process
>>are unimportant.
>
>Distorting my comments is not helpful.  I was careful in my writing; please 
>be careful in your reading.
>
>Since you are so concerned about process, I am sure that you will 
>appreciate the need for carefully attending to what people really say.

I made my comments based on the totality of your comments in the last
few months.  All I have seen is attacks on those who do raise
complaints.  I have seen little of substance and never any
acknowledgement that things could or should be done better.  

>>A complaint that one has less
>>than 24 hours and no formal opportunity for input is not trivial and
>>in fact goes to the very heart of ICANN's bylaws and founding
>>principles.
>
>This takes us directly back to the core fact that Verisign is running a 
>business and has no philosophical interest, and even less business 
>incentive, in the casual process that you want.

Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
negotiations for an extension.  I don't mind losing out in tough
negotiations when we tried our best but when we don't even try it is
no wonder we fail.

>You might see the latest revision as an example that public feedback can 
>have an effect; you are right.  You might see it as meaning that we can get 
>a delay; you are almost certainly wrong.  Changing dates affects schedules; 
>changing schedules affects expenses and revenues.
>
>What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?

Huge huge incentive.  If they are told not agreeing will increase the
chance of the status quo remaining.  But we didn't try for a delay -
not even for a month, a week or even a few days.  We will never know
if we could have got a delay in order to have fuller consideration.  

>>If I had a casual attitude about the content I would try to make a
>>snap judgement on them without having time to gather further
>>information and do a detailed analysis.  It is due to my desire to be
>>able to consider the content that say the main issue for now is
>>gaining the delay.
>
>In the last MONTH of careful analysis through public discussion, there was 
>intense focus on issues that were entirely irrelevant to the contract 
>choice, and essentially no attention to the key contract differences that 
>matter.

You have made this claim often but the GA Chair amongst others has
rebutted this.  Yes some people spent much of the time debating *.org.
But many people did not and did comment on the key differences.

>For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not 
>been doing it.

The 19 NC members certainly have done so.  It would have been proper
IMO to give the NC a chance to comment on whether the last minute
changes are in accordance with what they wanted.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html