Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 11:20 AM 4/2/2001, DPF wrote:

>>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.

This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
such as ICANN.  

>Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few 
>elected officials in Congress.  

Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
members in the telecommunications area.

>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.

Oh just like in NZ I have no doubt that you have your fair share of
thick representatives.  We had one who basically tried to ban the
Internet.  However we should not assume all representatives are
uninformed on such issues and that their comments can be ignored.
Let's remember that it was politicians who effectively stopped the
IAHC and led to ICANN being set up.

>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.

Some is posturing but if one really wants to ignore the increasing
frequency of negative comments from senior representatives it is at
your own peril.  

>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.

A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.
They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.
I want to do my part to make things better, not just pretend everyone
complaining is a lazy journalist, an ignorant politician or an
unrepresentative 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?

Well this is going beyond just the NZers who went as acquaintances in
Aussie have also told me about the meeting.  They included two senior
lawyers (both partners), an owner of an ISP, an e-commerce specialist,
a professor, a senior engineer.  The NZers generally also have
experience in ISOCNZ which has had many of the political debates that
ICANN has had but at a local level such as shared registration
systems, monopoly practices, heated debates, registry technical
problems etc.

>>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.

No ever says it explicitly but when over a period of several months
the vast majority of posts from certain individuals are attacking
those who are criticising ICANN, then they get seen mainly as
apologists.  

I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.  Debating
the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it does
likewise.

>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.

I disagree.  There are some who certainly are distractions but I find
a killfile does a lot to keep it manageable.  I think some of the
analysis and discussion in wg-review was excellent.  It then lost it's
way a bit but that was partially due to the fact the terms of
reference kept changing.

>>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".

We will have to agree to disagree.  Nine months ago I was agreeing
with you but I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
things with some simple steps.  Of course there will always be
pressure but let's not pretend ICANN is somehow unique as a non profit
in this respect.

>> >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.

But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
consultation with it.  Last minute changes with no input do not
further these aims.

>> >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.

I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
analysis of where ICANN could do better.  We are on the same side even
if we disagree over some issues.

>> >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?

Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
Their position was the same as Verisigns.

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

Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
those who did the negotiations.  Of course they are not going to agree
willy nilly when asked at a public forum.  

>> >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?

I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.  The
value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity and keeping
the registrar business is worth not hundreds of millions but quite
possibly over a billion dollars in the next few years.  

>> >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.

I have read the NC mailing list archives since then and it is obvious
that the NC members have carefully analysed the proposals, discussed
them with their constituencies and come back with position papers.  I
never said they did it at the Melbourne meeting.

>>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.

I believe they contained important policy issues which were the
province of the DNSO.  You of course disagree with me but that is
life.

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