[ecdiscuss] Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I have to agree with your assessment of Thomas's comments.
As a European it seems that Thomas is a bit out of step to
put it mildly...

  I am taking the liberty of cc'sing this to ecdiscuss list for
their review as well...

jefsey wrote:

> Dear Thomas,
> This is absolute nonsense
>
> You plead the ICANN is the only chance to balance interests in the mission
> creep area. Where it has  no mandate. No one wants the ICANN to have any
> teeth to defend anyone. No one expects the ICANN to fall on any side. This
> is actually what the consensus OPPOSES.
> ICANN is not a government, it is a small technical registry. It is only in
> being small, in being neutral and in treating everyone equal that it can
> could protect everyone's interests and foster competition. Otherwise it has
> absolutely NO interest and for many interests it is a DANGER they must control.
>
> Public control will not result from a GA vote. It will come after reading
> what you said, to investigate. Why do you think Lynn called the Govs? Have
> you ever called the Cops?
>
> After that you say what we all agree: that mission creep is absurd. And you
> want to make us being absurd telling it? From what you say you are a
> mathematician: I do hope your logic is better with numbers than with names.
>
> As you known I a moderate about, Jamies motion. I think you are right: it
> is urgent to vote it. As you way it will not kill the GA to ask for someone
> reasonable to step in. Why would Lynn have alone the right to call for the
> Govs?
>
> I am going to petition the EEC, will you join us?
> jfc
>
> At 01:34 09/05/02, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >On 2002-05-08 16:09:40 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >
> >>1.  What is the argument for not having people vote in a GA ballot
> >>measure, if they care about an ICANN issue?
> >
> >The argument, which has, by now, been repeated ad nauseam is that
> >the GA, as a body, is not the appropriate channel to make the
> >statement you are asking it to make.
> >
> >>2.  One reason to have this vote is that the ICANN board and staff are
> >>telling governments (everywhere) that they have a consensus in the
> >>"Internet community" on the reform process.  And if they say
> >>so, who is to say otherwise?  Unless, for example, you have
> >>something like a vote.  Right now a GA vote will be a data point. I think
> >>a useful data point regarding the degree of consensus on
> >>the Lynn/Board "reform" efforts, and it would be more interesting
> >>if there was larger participation, going even beyond the
> >>hyperactive GA-list posting community.
> >
> >You're mixing a couple of things which should, for the sake of
> >clarity, be treated separately.  I'll try to rehash some arguments
> >which have popped up before in various places.
> >
> >
> >You start by confusing reform process and the Lynn proposal.
> >1. Reform process: It's quite evident that ICANN is not functioning
> >in the manner expected by many.  I'm deliberately saying:
> >"expected".  Because one of the sources for the problems we are
> >currently experiencing are vastly different expectations of what
> >ICANN should do.  Let me give some examples: Verisign and their
> >attorneys at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (in particular, Susan
> >Crawford and David Johnson) are talking a lot about what consensus
> >means.  David coined the phrase of the "consent of those governed."
> >The ICANN they imagine could by the very definition of that
> >consensus not make any policy which is detrimental to the economical
> >interests of Verisign.  This expectation is mirrored when Verisign's
> >Cochetti talks (on behalf of the whole gTLD registries'
> >constituency!) about ICANN as a cooperative effort in Names Council
> >calls.  In the other end of the spectrum, user constituencies (like
> >the business and non-commercial constituencies) and the at-large
> >activists likewise expect that ICANN safeguards their interest
> >against self-interested activities of registries and registrars.  It
> >should be pretty obvious that these expectations are not compatible
> >in any manner, and that an ICANN which tries to fulfill both of
> >these just has to break.  (Likewise, a discussion process on reform
> >which does not address this conflict, but hides it under layers of
> >rhetoric for the sake of a simulation of consensus, is doomed to
> >fail.) Of course, this is not the only source of problems.
> >
> >Also, the very idea to push for a re-bid of functions implies that you do
> >believe that ICANN needs to be reformed quite urgently,
> >doesn't it?
> >
> >2. Reform proposals: I've certainly seen better pieces of English
> >literature. I see better logic from other mathematicians on a daily
> >basis.  I have seen more realistic ideas about government involvement with
> >ICANN.  I have also seen ideas for ICANN which actually respect public
> >participation instead of just talking about it.
> >
> >That said, there is one benefit with the Lynn proposal: It falls
> >clearly on one side of the expectations above.  And that's the
> >users' side, not the suppliers'.  In particular, the ICANN
> >envisioned by Lynn's propsoal is supposed to have the teeth
> >necessary to safeguard user interests.  It is designed in a way
> >which could balance the registries' and registrars' interests.  This is
> >worth keeping in mind.
> >
> >Bad enough, there have been very few realistic ideas about ICANN
> >reform at all.  Note, BTW, that the R&E commitee's policy-making
> >paper is one of the better documents in this area - in particular, it's
> >some orders of magnitude better than the "mission and core values" article
> >published a day earlier.
> >
> >
> >For these reasons, I believe that it's actually safe to state that there
> >is consensus in the larger Internet community (including both James Love
> >and Stuart Lynn) that "something has to be done about ICANN." ICANN's
> >response is the "reform process."
> >
> >
> >The next question you don't address clearly is: What could happen
> >after a re-bid?  (Whatever that means, in detail...)
> >
> >The obvious options are: Another private entity pops up, ICANN
> >remains in charge, but is reformed, and the USG (or some
> >international government-backed organization, such as the ITU) may take over.
> >
> >Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to be
> >the one least likely.
> >
> >Of course, some of you folks may be dreaming about the ORSC administrating
> >the DNS root for the public benefit, ideally without any involvement from
> >the IPC and business communities.  That may be a nice dream for some, but
> >it's unlikely to become true.  The key aspect to understand is that the
> >interests in DNS policy are not going to change.  The trademark lobby is
> >there to stay (they wouldn't even have a problem with a USG takeover -
> >that's why they are called "lobby," after all).  Business interests are
> >there to stay.  The GAC is there to stay.  Verisign is there to stay.
> >
> >Why should all these parties start to build an entirely new
> >structure when they can just as well build on the framework
> >(including all the contracts!) established by the current ICANN?
> >Why should any of these interests go for a different private entity
> >for the administration of the DNS - when they can just as well
> >force the current ICANN into a reform process?
> >
> >Thus, the only options which remain realistic are: (1) A reformed
> >ICANN, and (2) an end of the privatization experiment.  You folks
> >don't seem to like the first option.  I find the latter one even less
> >desirable.
> >
> >
> >Put into other words, a "successful" re-bid would mean public-sector
> >control over Internet policy.  Do you want THAT?  If so, please say it openly.
> >
> >
> >
> >Finally, you seem to say that someone has to say something about
> >ICANN reform.  I agree.  However, I believe that such a statement
> >should try to point out perspectives for private-sector control over
> >Internet policy.  What you suggest leads, if investigated closely,
> >just to the opposite result: To a declaration of bankrupcy of the
> >very idea of private-sector control over ICANN's areas of activity. Since
> >the very idea of having a General Assembly like this one is
> >essentially based on the concept of private-sector control, the
> >declaration of bankrupcy would include the GA.  Yes, it would be
> >collective suicide - but not because we'd say something "they" don't like,
> >but because we say that the structure we are part of is
> >fundamentally wrong.
> >
> >(In fact, one may even argue that Jamie's suggested statement would
> >inevitably lead to the dissolution of the GA in a little cloud of
> >logic, as punishment for producing a textbook example of a paradox:
> >Being part of ICANN structure, the GA would say that this structure
> >is fundamentally corrupt, and should not be relied upon.  Respecting this
> >recommendation would imply to ignore the GA.  It would, thus,
> >mean that the recommendation should be ignored.  "The present
> >statement is not true." That's very similar to: "The entity which
> >makes the present statement should not be relied upon.")
> >
> >Of course, there's a lot of fine statements the GA could reasonably make
> >on reform process:  The GA could outline a framework of principles.  It
> >could try to address the contradiction in expectations stakeholders have
> >in ICANN - that contradiction is hidden behind rhetoric once again in the
> >E&R committee's "core values and mission" paper.
> >
> >
> >To re-iterate my recommendation: Don't even try to use the GA as a
> >channel for calling for a re-bid.  Do that through outside channels, which
> >are surely available to organizations like the Consumer
> >Project on Technology. Try to use the GA as what it is: As a channel by
> >which additional input can be directed into ICANN's processes.
> >
> >--
> >Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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