[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end"

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I refer you to the reasonable questions and concerns sent to Dan Halloran 35
days ago, which he has still not had the courtesy to acknowledge, let alone
answer, presumably because the ICANN Board would prefer not to answer
difficult (but reasonable and relevant) questions.

Mr Sims,

You don't have to be "religious" and zealous for global democracy to assert
that ICANN lacks responsiveness to its stakeholders. If you claim any
credibility at all, then kindly get me rational answers to my fair and
honest questions.

But no, I guess you will not even reply, because the general public have
found in practice that the ICANN establishment skulks away and hides when
challenging questions (relevant to stakeholders) are raised.

Will you reply? Will ICANN acknowledge my relevant questions? Prove me
wrong! Get me some answers!

Otherwise, kindly don't lecture us on ICANN at all, or create a smokescreen
of "global democracy lunatics" to hide behind. I do not have to be a lunatic
to request openness, responsiveness, courtesy and transparency. But that is
what ICANN (and I suggest possibly you - we shall see...) lack.

Oh, and one other thing... whether ICANN is or is not self-regulatory, it
presides over a system which is... registrars who regulate themselves, and
who commit fraud, and yet remain accredited by ICANN.

Richard Henderson
www.theInternetChallenge.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <declan@well.com>
Cc: <politech@politechbot.com>; General Assembly of the DNSO <ga@dnso.org>;
atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:18 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post
on "self-regulation's end"


> Declan and all,
>
>   Of course, many of us that have been around for awhile, like myself,
> recognize that old Joe had to put some sort of spin on this.  That's
> what he gets paid to do after all, and handsomely to boot.  Hence
> giving his comments of this nature much credence or consideration
> would be a huge mistake or at least quite misleading...  Same Ding-Dong,
> Sing-Song...
>
>
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Previous Politech message:
> >
> > "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
> > http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html
> >
> > Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> > ---
> >
> > To: declan@well.com
> > Subject: Michael Geist's column
> > From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400
> >
> > Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider publishing
> > this response.
> >
> > The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the
answer
> > to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of
> > understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does
> > it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since he
has
> > the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to
> > correct his misunderstanding.
> >
> > Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory
> > body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It was
intended
> > to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to
global
> > issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national
governments
> > to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not
> > require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original
structure
> > called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large
membership
> > of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the
Internet
> > community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of the
> > discussions with the US Government that produced that construction, is
> > undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that decision,
and
> > I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was
convinced
> > that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers wanted
to
> > insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the time,
for
> > reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how to
do
> > it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the assistence of
> > Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this position,
> > notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible to
make
> > it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision.
> >
> > We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the concepts
on
> > which the original construction rested, and we actually know some things
> > that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global on-line
> > elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for ICANN to
be
> > on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that there is
no
> > consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest
should
> > be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence of
> > those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.  We
know
> > that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who insist
on
> > direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other
> > alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious
> > approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.
> >
> > We also know that a purely private organization, without the support and
> > involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able to
carry
> > out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission requires
> > the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure
> > providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive
> > power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the community
> > voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed.  To
> > date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why it has
not
> > happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold
> > on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators, the
address
> > registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to the
ICANN
> > table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less stable,
less
> > predictable organization.
> >
> > Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the path
to
> > ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the
> > private sector and global governments working together within an ICANN
> > structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective
> > decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such an ICANN,
> > and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting in
> > Bucharest later this month.
> >
> > The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the
failure
> > to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.  Governments
are
> > properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly
critical
> > to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and because
> > what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable
operation
> > of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's
> > directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this fact that
is
> > driving the process of gaining the proper level of government
participation
> > in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists on
> > occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for some
> > utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a body
that
> > does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the
entire
> > Internet provider and user community.
> >
> > Joe Sims
> > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> >
> > ==============================
> > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
attorney-client
> > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
is
> > intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are
not
> > an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying
> > to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
> > distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients
is
> > not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > ==============================
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> > To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>

--
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