Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:34:36 -0700, you wrote:

>At 01:45 AM 4/3/2001, DPF wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>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.
>
>I suggest you learn more about current trends and problems in reporting.

I have to deal with such trends every day.  My professional
responsibilities include dealing with media.  While some of what you
say is true on the local scene I have observed quite a big change in
how certain organisations are reported after they have made changes to
how they operate.

>>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.
>
>That makes their ignorance and silliness all the more offensive, but does 
>not make it less ignorant or silly.

The ignorant remarks came from the ordinary members of the cmte.  The
letters to DOC came from the senior members.

>And it is interesting that you are willing to accept comments "from 
>authority" when it agrees with your criticisms, but not when it doesn't.

I try to accept arguments and comments based on how well they are
substantiated regardless of who makes them.

>>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.
>
>Huh?  The cctld constituency is very highly vested.

I disagree.  Most of them don't care a damn about gTLD issues.  Their
interests are really focused on redelegation policies and whether any
attempts will be made to apply gTLD policies to ccTLDs.  

If ICANN disappeared tomorrow the cctlds would happily continue on
with no problem.   

>For nearly two years they have rather firmly and very explicitly sought to 
>delay the introduction of new TLDs.  (I got kicked out of a RIPE ccTLD 
>meeting in Scotland for raising the perspective that they were being 
>counterproductive.)

I have seen no evidence that the constituency as a whole has tried to
stop the new TLDs.  Sure a very small minority perhaps 5% may see them
as competitors but that is not the majority of the ccTLDs.  I can't
comment on why you would have bene kicked out of a meeting, not having
been there.

>>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.
>
>Concerned, of course.
>
>The pervasive lack of maturity among participants in Melbourne was 
>striking.  Overall the tone from the floor was the same as watching a 
>child's tantrum.  No sense of the practical constraints on processes such 
>as ICANN, and no sense of shared responsibility for making things 
>works.  Just constant, childish outbursts.

Sigh so once again we get the attitude that everyone there was wrong
and you are right.  If people were angry about things perhaps it was
with justification.  Or do you really think that most of the
participants are thicker than you and can't see these practical
constraints you speak of.

>However one small effort:  as you look at the pattern of postings that you 
>assess to be "apologist" you might equally look at the pattern of postings 
>they respond to.
>
>First ask whether the poster has been showing a pattern of sniping at ICANN.

Some do - not all.  It is natural of course for people to concentrate
on the things they think could be done better.  What is more important
is whether people just complain or whether they actually propose
alternatives.

>Then consider carefully the practical aspects of their criticisms.  Not 
>just whether there is some surface credibility to the criticism, but 
>whether it reflects core, practical concerns, balanced against core, 
>practical constraints.
>
>In other words, do they reflect a balanced effort to negotiate through 
>difficult, practical waters or are they just idealistic, rigid and/or 
>self-centered demands from a single perspective?

This is a fair call.  I agree some of the critics do not display much
practical reality.  On the other hand a fair number of them do IMO.

>>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.
>
>In a serious dialogue, with serious participants, you are entirely 
>correct.  We are not in such a situation.  The public dialogue has been 
>taken over by a a combination of interest groups that have created a 
>dynamic which entirely stifles serious discussion.

So how would you remedy this?

>>Debating the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it 
>>does likewise.
>
>Tried it.  At length.
>
>Doesn't work.  Sorry.

I've tried it and found it is worthwhile.  It may takes months or
years to get results but one does.  I have great faith in human
nature.  

>>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.
>
>As my cited slide shows, yes there are some serious participants 
>around.  They have no useful effect because the forces surrounding their 
>comments combine to drown them out.

Again I disagree.  Serious participants managed to persuade the Board
to have direct not indirect elections amongst the at large membership.
Serious participants got changes to the bylaws and board meetings more
public.

>One item I left off the list is the difficulty of managing open group 
>processes.  It often requires some special skills and they are rare.

Very much agreed there.

>>...I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
>>things with some simple steps.
>
>"For every complex problem, there is a simple solution.  And it is 
>wrong."  H.L. Mencken

Always easy to find smart quotes.  Harder to identify solutions.

>>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.
>
>Well, this is a good example of the problem with a narrow focus in looking 
>at practical matters.  In particular it reflects a failure to consider that 
>Verisign IS a business and they are running a critical infrastructure 
>service, and they have no incentive to let the matter linger on 
>endlessly.  They already had a contract, remember.

Which IMO would have been fine to stay with.  

>"The best interests of the Internet" are served better by improvements in 
>contracts with operators than by catering to a tiny group of constantly 
>plaintive observers.  If the quality of participation by the observers had 
>a more useful history, comments about process might have some legitimacy, 
>but so far this group has largely squandered its platform.

So the Registrars are a tiny group of constantly plaintive
observers???

>>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.
>
>Interesting that you do no seem inclined to DISMISS those who show a 
>constant pattern of only criticizing, demanding from them that they provide 
>some analysis of where ICANN has done well...

I actually do dismiss to some degree those who attack ICANN non stop
without suggesting how it can do better (I have sympathy for why they
do it but don't feel it helps much).  It is a fair point that people
should praise ICANN when it does do things right and this is something
I will try to do.

>> >>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.
>
>You have no basis for such a claim, since you were not in the discussions 
>and they have made no public statements supporting your assertions.

The negotiators seemed more enthusiastic for the changes than Verisign
did and displayed antagonism to any delay.

>> >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.
>
>You do not know what was said, requested or demanded.  The fact that you 
>are so firm in making assertion for which you have no objective basis 
>demonstrates undermines your claim about careful and serious discussion.

The public statements of the negotiators clearly indicated they did
not want a delay.  If there is some evidence they in fact pushed for a
delay this would be welcome.

>> >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
>
>As a practical matter, they have had that grant for some years.  The real 
>effect of the contract revision was to reduce their "hassle factor" from 
>challenges for awhile.

There is considerable disagreement on that interpretation.  I have
tried to make the point that the issue is not just whether Verisign
keeps *.com but by not granting them a presumptive right there is more
pressure on them to perform as well as possible and keep fees low.

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