Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

[PacificRoot Hostmaster <idno@tallship.net>]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> No! We have to stop the ICANN from being a policy center. ICANN has a poor 
> policy, but even if the ICANN was carrying good policy it would be wrong, 
> because this not the appropriate place for any policy at all. Again, I do 
> not want my telephone to be democratic: I want it to work.

As Vint said himself when cornered by distinguished Conressional
representatives, "uh... we're only responsible for our root."

That much is true - ICANN is central to nothing else.

> 
> The rest is pure wasted time, effort and money and network/world 
> destabilization.
> Jefsey

Precisely :)

> 
> 
> On 19:09 13/10/01, William S. Lovell said:
> >Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
> >explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
> >name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
> >some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
> >recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
> >body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
> >function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
> >properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
> >system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given to
> >any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
> >since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
> >of whatever ICANN created.
> >
> >Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
> >expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
> >(a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
> >itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
> >policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
> >of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
> >of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.
> >
> >Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
> >speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
> >ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
> >published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
> >whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
> >Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
> >Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
> >title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
> >Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
> >in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
> >L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
> >Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
> >or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
> >quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
> >to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
> >to make policy decisions relating to it."
> >
> >In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
> >and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
> >body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
> >users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
> >duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
> >presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
> >go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
> >only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
> >attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
> >with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
> >a concerted opposition.
> >
> >It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> >it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> >on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
> >there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
> >out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
> >any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
> >political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
> >a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
> >being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
> >in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
> >the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
> >walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
> >political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
> >So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
> >to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
> >therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
> >source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
> >essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
> >the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
> >has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
> >is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
> >so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
> >field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
> >so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)
> >
> >At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
> >through the development of a structure wherein domain
> >name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
> >those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
> >can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
> >it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
> >broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
> >demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
> >that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
> >But don't hold your breath.
> >
> >Bill Lovell
> >
> >
> >DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved 
> >>forward.  On
> >>October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
> >>
> >>With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> >>Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> >>further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> >>commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> >>with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> >>not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> >>constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> >>language:
> >>      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals 
> >> constituency
> >>and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> >>ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> >>resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> >>own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> >>would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> >><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html 
> >>
> >>
> >>The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> >>a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> >>encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> >>to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> >>proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> >>clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
> >>
> >>Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> >>issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> >>opened and it will not be open for long.
> >>
> >>Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> >>need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> >>"input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> >>the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> >>successful application.
> >>
> >>The Review report is in:
> >><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html 
> >>
> >>
> >>Comments may be posted to:  comments-review@dnso.org
> >>
> >>The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> >>their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break 
> >>down
> >>their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> >>luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> >>will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
> >>
> >>--
> >>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >The URLs for Best Practices:
> >DNSO Citation:
> ><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> >(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> >Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> >page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> >Part I:
> ><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html 
> >
> >Part II:
> ><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf 
> >
> >(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> >available for free down load at
> ><http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html>http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.) 
> >
> >Part III:
> ><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html 
> >
> >
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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