Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:15:59 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:05:29PM +1200, DPF wrote:
>[...]
>> 
>> >Whatever your extensive experience with proper staff functions, the 
>> >analysis provided by ICANN staff is actually quite professional.  It labels 
>> >opinions as opinions.  It analyses contract language and describes specific 
>> >obligations and lack of obligations, in terms of common expectation about 
>> >Verisign.
>> 
>> The analysis is extremely slanted, ignores many negative attributes,
>> glosses over others and puts the most unfavourable interpretation on
>> the existing contract.
>
>That is, it doesn't favor your interpretation.

That is not an issue.  I don't want it to be biased towards my
opinions any more than I want it to be a cheer leader for the new
agreements.

I believe having the staff act as cheerleaders for a contract they
negotiated without policy guidance is inappropriate.  I want an
analysis which gives a balanced listing of the pros and cons and
allows the reader to decide for themselves if the pros outweigh the
cons.

The analysis places every interpretation of the status quo agreement
under the worst possible light and every part of the new proposal in
the best possible light.  It is unbalanced IMO.  I would have much
higher faith in it if it acknowledged the weaknesses of the new
proposal.

>> Also who asked for the staff to do this lobbying?  Did the Board ask
>> the staff to do this?
>
>Wouldn't be at all surprised.  

Rather than presume though why not find out.  Can a Board member
confirm Kent's guess?

>Vint Cerf, Chairman of the Board,
>obviously has supported these agreements, in case you haven't noticed.  
>If you were a staff member, and the chair of the board asked you to do 
>something, would you do it?

Actually I as a staff member do what my CEO asks me to do.  The CEO
will follow Board decisions and also request from the Chair within the
terms of the delegated authority of the Chair.  How much authority is
delegated to the Chair by the Board?

>> Conclusions such as that Verisign would be unbeatable to retain the
>> registries under the existing contract are highly inappropriate for
>> staff to make.
>
>The "staff" includes Louis Touton, General Counsel for the corporation. 
>Contrary to your assertion, it is his *job* to offer his best opinion as
>to the meaning of the various clauses in the contract.  

No it is not.  His job is to defend the interest of ICANN and not
place possibly unsought opinions on the website which are the legal
equivalent of rolling over to Verisign and saying we will give you
anything you want.

As one knows with any law suit there are always two sides to an
argument - opinions are subjective at best often.  One expects your
lawyer to argue for you not for the other party.

>That is at is
>precisely why people hire lawyers, after all.  This goes for other staff
>members -- Andrew is a policy analyst; it is his job to give his
>opinion, as well.

I have never mentioned Andrew or criticised him.  In fact I have gone
out of my way to say the criticism of the appalling behaviour by some
staff at Melbourne does not include Andrew.  I have not met Andrew but
generally his electronic communications have struck me as reasonable
and well thought out, even though of course one disagrees on some
issues.

>You are unhappy that the staff analysis doesn't support your point of 
>view -- that's understandable.  

No that is not it.  I would be equally unhappy if their opinion
mirrored what I was saying.  I want them to be non partisan in this.

>But you have descended into personal 
>attacks, and that's not so good.

I have done no such thing.  I have not even named names so how can it
be a personal attack.  It is ludicrous to suggest that one can not
criticise the actions of staff without it being labeled a personal
attack.

I was not even at Melbourne.  But the feedback from those who were was
universally negative.  And we are not talking long haired radicals but
two lawyers, a professor, a business man, a company director, an ISP
manager who gave this feedback.  The feedback also matched what I had
observed on various mailing lists including the Names Council, hence
my comments.

I do not consider myself a "radical"when it comes to ICANN.  I want
ICANN to succeed.  I actually support having a UDRP (but want it more
consistent), I support keeping constituencies, I generally support the
way the Board decided on new TLDs, I do not really support alternative
roots,  and I thought ICANN had done very well with splitting up the
NSI monopoly and introducing registrar competition.

For someone like me who is pretty conservative on most issues to be
appalled by what I observe the staff doing should be ringing warning
bells to those who care.  I have absolutely no commercial interest in
the Internet or ICANN and am purely concerned with what is best for
the Internet (as I am sure others are).  And I am very very concerned
about the attempt to bulldoze these new agreements through as the
effects could be with us for decades.  They also have the potential to
permanently destroy faith in ICANN's ability to succeed.

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