Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 11:20 AM 4/2/2001, DPF wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:39:15 -0700, you wrote:
> >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.

OK.  Let's consider your list:

With few exceptions, media reporting simply looks for controversy.  So what 
they report is essentially the same as what takes place in these public 
exchanges.  The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain 
whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any 
meaningful support.

Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few 
elected officials in Congress.  The best example of their careful, informed 
commentary came when one of them criticized Vint Cerf and ICANN saying that 
by not creating .kids ICANN was "inviting" the US Congress to pursue the 
matter of pornography.  The august representative was unaware of just how 
irrelevant .kids (and .xxx) are to matters of content regulation.

Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's 
difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious, 
both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with 
their supposed concern.

And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN 
meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to 
discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the 
meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested 
interest.

However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you 
cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is 
their understanding of serious operations administration for critical 
infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals 
with practical constraints?

d/

>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.

It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who 
has ever expressed such blinkered view.

The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal 
attacks, and focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it 
impossible to conduct serious, public discussion about serious, practical 
improvements.


>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".

Given the highly distorted history of mis-steps that ICANN inherited from 
the US government, and the thoroughly politicized pressure-cooker that 
ICANN lives in now, you should be astonished, impressed and delighted that 
it has forged anything even close to "okay".

> >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.

No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive 
matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is 
a contract.

> >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.

Since you attribute to me a position I do not hold and have not expressed, 
it is pretty clear that your assessment is based on something else.


> >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.

1.  How do you know that?

2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public 
exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.


> >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.

That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status 
quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is 
your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a 
horrible outcome to Verisign?

> >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.

Actually, no they have not.  The NC had a lengthy, open session in 
Melbourne, during which they discussed Alternative B.  They spent the 
entire time complaining that they did not have enough time to consider the 
matter -- the document had, by then, been out for 2 weeks -- and they spent 
no time at all considering the content.


>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.

You appear to believe that the DNSO is supposed to participate in contract 
negotiations.

They are not.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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