RE: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Part II

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:

> 
> Because I can't believe, not even for a moment, that people like Roeland
> Meyer, Mikki Barry, Ellen Rony, Karl Auerbach, and so on, and so forth, are
> giving up.

> Because I can't believe, not even for a moment, that people like Roeland
> Meyer, Mikki Barry, Ellen Rony, Karl Auerbach, and so on, and so forth, are
> giving up.

I personally have been involved with these issues for a while now,
initially due to various positions I have held, and now simply out of a
personal interest in and appreciation of the importance of the decisions
being made.

I also care about the motivations, ethics, and character of those
put into place who wield ever-increasing power to affect not only the
extremely limited area of e-commerce, but the fundamental ability for
Internet users to communicate at all. 

As evidence of this power, I offer the results of the unrepresentative,
extremely short-lived process which resulted in *mandatory* contract
clauses being put in place to offer ICANN, the registry, and/or the
registrar complete freedom to revoke a users domain registration at whim.
Do you believe the average registrant would agree to such a clause if
given a choice? Do you honestly believe that the ICANN board, and
associated special interests considered the rights and interest of the
individual in creating such a clause? 

Such actions of the ICANN board were both predicated on and now serve to
further secure the capture and dominance of the organization by a
small group of well-funded highly political actors, who view ICANN as:

  a) A vehicle for centralizing and exerting global control of the
     Internet and its users. This is to be effected in part by collusion
     with the GAC(and likely the ITU/EU &Friends) in order to offer
     credibility vis-a-vis the presense of representatives from various
     governments offering "opinions" and endorsing actions undertaken by
     ICANN. 

     The GAC was immediately and unquestioningly recognized by ICANN.
     ICANN explained the formation and recognition of the GAC as a
     constituency as being called for in the White Paper. This is in fact
     patently false as a read of the White Paper will reveal.  
                  
     The GAC is of questionable real purpose, and while ICANN
     board members have claimed otherwise, the actual level of influence
     that GAC wields over ICANN, influence without any pesky laws or
     procedures they didn't create to follow is unclear.
 
  b) A direct or indirect means to inure financially or otherwise benefit
     from de-facto laws "making the world safe for e-commerce"
     (newsflash-Take a look around you...) which also serve to aid poor,
     picked-on, at-risk big business/trademark interests being held
     captive by evil "cybersquatters"(where cybersquatter is defined as
     anyone with a name registrared that they covet.)

  c) A means to benefit their careers.

The only possible solace I can find in expending the effort to offer 
comments, as I am not a Ralph Nader or Congressional representative 
to which ICANN will deign to pay attention to, is that the statements I
make are archived on the record for the time (hopefully) when and if there
is an accounting for ICANNs actions.  The collection of discussions will
serve to show that the proclamations of "consensus" for every action,
claims the PR machine employed by ICANN have successfully duped those
viewing from afar who are unfamilar and/or only marginally involved in
these matters with, are baseless and in no way serve as explanation or
justification for much of what has been done.  

Of course this is predicated on such an accounting happening. I remain
hopeful that enough people and/or organizations will be found or will find
all of this for themselves, will recognize how important the role of ICANN
is, will take the time to become thoroughly informed as to all that has
occured, and demand such an accounting and actual representation from
their governments, one of the few voices that ICANN pays any attention to.
It is with this hope in mind that I bother engaging in the occasional
lengthly missive...

It is important to note however, that my possibly naieve hope doesn't
equate to any equally naieve belief in a high probability of this
occuring, short of a lawsuit filed by an unexpected party. 

The stark reality is that the vast majority if not all of the detractors
of what ICANN has become lack the resources to effectively battle the
combination of the PR machine that ICANN has employed, the favors and
support ICANN is creating by pandering to big business, and the catering
to the egos of low-level, power-hungry government functionaries. 

Instead, we are being portrayed as "a small number of loud voices holding 
marginal views." These views include such apparently outrageous beliefs in
the necessity of ICANN being an open, transparent, directly representative
organization, where primary among concerns are the creation of
objective, well-defined, cleary communicated process via such means as
voting mechanisms for all interested parties, before engaging in
the alteration of fundamental precepts of ICANN as outlined in the White
Paper. Oh, I know it's crazy, but the ability to demonstrate consensus
that is being claimed, and identification of all sources proposing
changes would be nice too. 

Beyond us obvious radical subversives desiring some kind of democracy,  
there are a good number of folks that are mostly very quiet about ICANN. 

Some, such as potential registrars, businesses which have been enabled by
the actions of the DOC (not ICANN as revisionists would have us believe) 
in conducting successful negotiations with NSI, and whose entry into the
registrar business is now controlled by ICANN, have had no choice but to
play along with ICANN, complying with its dictates, lest they be rendered
unable to compete effectively or at all as post-NSI monopoly registrars. 
While many of these new registrars have been performing registration 
functions for a while, the potential associated cost savings and profits
from the ability to act directly as a registrar are vital to their
continued competitiveness. 

Given the prospect of having some opportunity to compete under ICANN law,
with a largely dictated business model, mandatory non-negotiable(unless
you are NSI) contracts, or being forced into litigation against ICANN in
an effort to assert and protect the rights and autonomy any business
should have from enforced business models and mandatory contracts they and
their customers must submit to dictated by a unelected, unrepresentative,
quasi-governmental organization backed by the DoC whose ability to offer
a viable legal defense of claimed authority is seriously in question,
there is really very little choice. They could: 

  1) Not become an ICANN-accredited registrar, making an arrangement with
     an organziation that is. This not only has a potential perception of
     being less desireable to consumers, costs would be higher and any
     registrations they processed for (.com/.net/.org) would still subject
     their customers to ICANNs overreaching mandatory contract clauses
     including domain name revocation at whim.

  2) Attempt potentially very costly litigation against an organization
     that has unlimited credit at a top law firm. Failure could put them
     out of business. Success, with the light it would shed on the
     formation, operation and lack of authority DoC has in granting ICANN
     authority could well spell the end of ICANN. Without ICANN there
     would be uncertainty as to the near-term ability to become a
     registrar. Net result: nothing.

     Some choice.

Still others, mostly technical folks, many of whom are respected in the
industry and new to or only peripherally involved in these events, while
well-intentioned in their desire to help repair an ICANN they too view as
broken, suffer from acute ego affliction issues. They labor under the
mistaken belief that they are politically savvy enough to influence the
process, operation, and decision-making of ICANN to create something
reasonable by operating quietly in the background.

It is a simple matter to demonstrate how incredibly naieve this view in
light of what ICANN is today and the experience gained by many of us in
attempting to create something respectable, via an open, representative
process, and failing that, in attempting to prevent many of the most
egregious actions that ICANN has undertaken. While many have at all times
operated in the open and in good faith, experience has shown that expectations 
and wishes for a meaningful and valued voice in these decisions were going
to be completely unfulfilled, and instead serve to expose the true purpose
and intent of those promulgating the lie of ICANN. 

While most of us were acting as "window-dressing", offering an outward
appereance of openness, transparency, and input, the small group of very
experienced, highly-skilled political power-brokers and opportunists   
who are well-accustomed to manueverings and enjoy back-room dealings,
the folks who were really running the show, played many of us for fools.
They did a great job too. Stabbing people with hands outstretched
towards you in cooperation in the back and then using their corpses to
further your cause is quite an accomplishment. Machavelli would be proud.   

  a) Founding documents were produced out of thin air, which ran
     completely contrary to the documents arrived at by the participants
     within the IFWP series of meetings, the only open, inclusive process
     that occured.

     A significant number of people raised their voices to demand that
     the godhead-birthed documents be ignored in favor of those created 
     around the consensus points arrived at in numerous IFWP meetings, or
     at a minimum, the two sets of documents be merged. These voices were
     ignored.

  b) Sweeping modifications were made to these documents produced from
     nowhere, with the same claims of "consensus" to do so ICANN employs
     and the exact same corresponding inability to substantiate those
     claims. 

     Many of the same people again raised their voices to demand to know
     who was making the modifications, and call for demonstration of
     claimed "consensus" given the apparent lack of any such consensus to even use 
     the documents as a basis for founding documents, and beyond that
     visable support for the changes being made. The parties making or
     authorizing modifications never identified themselves. The voices
     demanding accountability were once again ignored.

  c) A board was hand-picked by a completely unidentified group of
     individuals who refused to identify themselves, employing an unknown
     and undisclosed process and criteria for selection. 

     Many of thes same people again raised their voices again, demanding 
     to know who made the choices, what process they used, and to object
     to the results which were arrived at in a process completely
     contrary to the principles of openness, transparency and 
     representation those engaged in such a process were mandated to
     employ. Their voices were once again ignored.

  d) The DoC refused to let ICANN proceed as a fait' accompli given the
     number of voices of many of the same people demanding consideration
     and inclusion of items contained within the Boston Working Groups
     proposal until such time as their concerns were adequately addressed
     and revisions to the ICANN documents were made. Representatives of
     ICANN, including Jones Day attorney Joe Sims completely misrepresented a 
     brief interaction with the BWG in which nothing was decided or 
     agreed upon to DoC representative Ira Magaziner as evidence of a
     good-faith effort and completion of this task. Mr. Magaziner was
     informed by numerous parties that this was a lie, and directed, and
     ordered ICANN hopefuls back to the table with BWG. Only very topical,
     non-substatial changes were made to the ICANN founding documents. I
     believe all of those modifications have since been removed or 
     altered to remove any original intent. Once again, the voices were
     ignored.

  e) ICANN was blessed by Becky Burr, and in effect, handed the keys.
     ICANN immediately embarked on a spree of wide-spread changes to 
     its founding documents, with no apparent community demand whatsoever
     for, or consensus regarding the vast majority of changes.

     Some of the same people again raised their voices, questioning the
     source, need, effect, and level of support for the changes. In many
     cases they argued against the changes themselves. The changes were
     made anyways.  These voices were once again ignored.

  f) ICANN instituted an ad-hoc and incomplete working group structure,
     based on a half-baked DNSO, one suffering from a complete
     lack of process or foundation. ICANN then directed them to make 
     recommendations regarding decisons on highly complex issues and
     contentious issues. 
     
     A few of the same people again raised their voices, questioning the 
     need for immediate action on some of the issues, given the lack of 
     procedure and representative structure.  On other issues, they argued
     against a working group existing to take action regarding particular 
     issues, citing the contentious nature of the issue and the lack of any 
     consensus that action should be taken at all. Once again, these
     voices were ignored.

Perhaps these people have grown very, very hoarse from raising their
voices so often and not having them heard. Instead they have often been
subjected to the "special attentions" of a handful of individuals that
have no apparent purpose other than to be nasty and disagreeable towards
the views of people who in their eyes destroyed the gTLD-MOU, and of
course jockey for positions within the ICANN structure. 

Perhaps these people are silent because the have previously spoken every
time a lie is told in which ICANN claims consensus for actions taken,
where none exists, and they have no voice left right now. 

Perhaps these people are simply silent because the are waiting for ICANN,
in the full glory of its arrogance, to make an irreperable blunder that it
nor it's high-priced PR firm can explain away or lie about
effectively.....