[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Essay on ICANN
Michael and all,
First let me say that we [INEGroup] disagree with your evaluation of
Professor Fromkin and Mr. Weinberg. Although they could have come
out a bit stronger in their concerns regarding the ICANN, they are
certainly not apologists.
Second, we [INEGroup] completely agree that short of congressional
action, legal remedies are likely the only method left by which proper
addressing of many "Policies" that the current ICANN (initial?) Interim
Board have set, will be necessary. This has been MY personal opinion
stated many times publicly. I still remains so. The sooner this sort of
action is taken the better. The only question here is who is willing to
sign a complaint for legal proceedings to commence? It will need to
be a fairly large group.....
I personally detest having to resort to using legal methods to control
ICANN, but it may be the only method for individuals and small ecommerce
business people to protect their interests, most especially their
personal privacy and their business property, namely their DN's.
INEGroup stands financially ready should such a group, any group
be truly prepared to take several legal stances in this regard with
a legal fund exceeding $14m...
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Dennis wrote (to Michael Froomkin):
> >
> > I heard Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts today take an oath before proclaiming that ICANN was an
> > open, inclusive organization committed to avoiding disparate treatment for any group.
>
> "Consensus" is the key word, thrown in at every opportunity as a
> smokescreen and shield against any interrogation of the board's true
> activities.
>
> > I am not saying
> > they are incapable of having a change of heart, but how would I know that? They would be swearing
> > to the same things they've always sworn to.
>
> Precisely. And without the chance to cross-examine and present
> witnesses and testimony that contradicts their assertions, they
> cannot be disproved. That is why it has become necessary, quite
> necessary, to take ICANN to court.
>
> > In addition, you make the magnanimous statement that no one says that ICANN is corrupt. That
> > statement is premature at best. The ICANN board endorsed the WIPO draft before sending it to the
> > DNSO. That was the act of a captured organization, under the complete control of an interest group.
>
> There is other evidence of capture. Michael Roberts and Joe Sims
> were present on the June 10th NCDNHC teleconference, during which
> legitimate representatives of DNSO constituencies were disconnected
> from the conference on the say-so of an unelected, temporary NC
> chair, and neither said a word in protest. Sox of the seven
> constituencies of the DNSO are in the hands of CORE or its allies.
> There are five (or more) CORE officers on the NC, when the ICANN
> bylaws prohibit more than one officer of an organization at a time.
> The Non-Commercial constituency has been run from its inception
> through the listserv and website of one of the organizations - ISOC
> - vying for control of it, a clear breach of due process tantamount
> to fraud, and this has been condoned and abetted by the ICANN board.
> The DNSO and its NC held official meetings under the aegis of ISOC,
> a special-interest group within ICANN. Two members of the nine
> members of the ICANN board are members of ISOC, and four of them are
> members of the IAHC, a coalition of special interests formed prior
> to the creation of ICANN. And there are more, many more, evidences
> of capture of ICANN.
>
> > The ICANN staff includes some brilliant young lawyers. For ICANN to > have failed this long and this consistently to see that it needed to > scrutinize all its actions to ensure that it wasn't becoming a state
> > actor violating individuals' civil liberties is an act at best of > hysterical blindness, at worst, of plain old corruption.
>
> "Corruption" implies payment for services, although there are other
> motives for it. Rather than simple corruption, the U.S. antitrust
> laws - the Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act -
> envisage "conspiracy" as a mechanism for capture. Conspiracy would
> be the collusion of persons and organizations for the purpose of
> controlling an organization that regulates commerce, in order to
> benefit those persons and organizations.
>
> > I like your quest for a solution -- but this isn't it.
>
> At yesterday's Commerce Committee hearing, which I attended,
> Jonathan Weinberg, one of the witnesses and an associate of Michael
> Froomkin, defended and apologized for ICANN. Michael Froomkin and
> Jonathan Weinberg have consistently defended the existence of ICANN
> on these lists, and have gone out of their way to denigrate and
> demolish any and all arguments for the prosecution of the board and
> exposure of its capture by special interests. In effect, Froomkin
> and Weinberg are apologists for ICANN. Their goal is to preserve it.
>
> ============================================================
> Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> Tel. (212)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
> ============================================================
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members 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: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208