Re: [ga] Austerity measures

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

I would also concur wholeheartedly with these gentlemen.  Although
I could not resist jumping in with a little physical chemistry for the fun
of it -- partly because all good works should be leavened with some
amount of (at least attempted) humor, and although I had expressed
an "I don't care myself" response -- the fact remains that inordinate
amounts of time are being spent on this.  The issue is not the 20 hrs,
but the disappearance of a line of communication. 20 hours, even
at what lawyers would charge, is infinitesimal in comparison to the
ICANN budget, and with that famous "in progress" budget speaking
of added staff and added $millions, that cost bit seems to be a non-
starter. Even so, it has raised the suggestion "well, what other of the
9 lists should we consider eliminating?" In short, we've fallen into a
trap.

As Roeland Meyer has excellently pointed out, there now arises the
spectre of "censorship" which, like terms such as "rogue," is an
absolute magnet in drawing comment from all us democratically-
minded rabble (whose battle cry is often "tumult to the end!"),
which ultimately serves the single purpose of distracting all of
us from the real issues, which are such things as:

As Patrick points out today, what about WIPO-2?

What about whether "accredited registrars" are writing
the budget behind closed doors?

Does that bunch of 11,000 trademark lawyers really decide the
issue of having an Individual Constituency for ICANN?

Is this NC Working Group going to say (or do) anything
about that?

Problem is, issues of lists, banning, censorship, etc., have the
characteristic of being somewhat personal.  It's like if you
want to absorb the attention of a horse, you send in a horse fly.
The horse will ordinarily not be concerned with issues of
current market prices of hay and grain, nor does the contract
go to Jones' Feed Store or Smith's, but we are not horses.  We
allow ourselves to get distracted by trivia -- whether or not
this whole scene is a deliberate political tactic pumped up by
the powers that be so that they can go on with the process
of governing ICANN as they see fit, with little if any response
to the membership, is a question for another day.  But it is in
the interests of all of us, methinks, to concentrate on the really
important, long term, strategic issues, and not these irritants.

In any organization, there are direct routes, and indirect routes.
If the direct ones don't work, one uses the indirect ones. It is
also in the interests of all of us to keep ICANN whole, and
solid, and carrying out what it purports to be carrying out. If
the direct routes through established ICANN channels don't
work, one uses the indirect, i.e., the Congress, the IRS, the
California Attorney General, the courts, and so on. None of
these would come anywhere near the totally ill-advised notion
of "dumping ICANN," but would rather be a legitimate effort
to get ICANN on the track it was set up for. As a comparison,
corporate stockholders sue their boards all the time.  (This
analogy, of course, is a long way from being very accurate.)
But to run screaming to any of these alternative routes (not to
be confused with alternative roots!) one must have evidence.
Not to give any legal advice here, but the relevant terms would
be either malfeasance or nonfeasance, or both, or whatever
an actual detailed analysis of what has and has not been done,
would cough up. The more time is spent on trivia, the less is
available to get at what really counts.  "Moral victories" over
personal issues, however satisfying they may be, contribute
little to the real operation of ICANN. One can beat the issue of
list administration forever, while losing sight of the fact that
the whole purpose of these lists, which is raising substantive
issues and making informed and effective decisions, has then
been put off for yet another inordinate length of time.

In short, it's a "perspective" kind of thing -- if it's not fundamental
to what ICANN as a whole actually does, don't take the bait.

The suggestion, then, and while leaving entirely open the door
to any attempts at humor (essential to any organization, so that
we don't all end up looking like persimmon eaters), is to bypass
all those fly bites and concentrate on what it is that really makes
ICANN run, and does it do what it does in the fully public interest
as it is bound to by its Articles of Incorporation rather than catering
to the desires of special interest groups -- that spectre has been
raised, you know.

Bill Lovell








Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Good evening.
>
> I would second Roeland's comment below:
>
> >
> >I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
> >considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise that
> >enabled moderation on the GA list.
>
> I think that the NC should reconsider the matter, because closing down the
> GA-full will definitively destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago.
> The idea to restart from scratch the whole discussion about monitoring and
> censorship, right now that we seem to start making some progress, is
> frightening.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> (catching up with e-mail after a week offline)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --
> 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

--
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