[ga] Joe Sims to Politech re: Gilmore interview

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

http://www.politechbot.com/p-03717.html

What I find very interesting, aside from the totally defensive tone of Mr. Sims' 
tirade, is that most of the accounts that I have heard from those who participated 
in that early history tend to corroborate Gilmore's version.  

"...the Board is not divided at all; the vast majority of its votes result in a 
larger than two-thirds majority..."

In addition, his comments regarding the board leave out that individuals are 
represented by a serious minority of the board and that those selected by the 
DNSO are representatative of the consituencies rather than individuals, who have 
no consituency, AND that the most influential of the board members are 
squatters who have never been elected at all and do not even closely represent 
individuals' views. And this is a supposedly "non-profit, public benefit 
corporation" that works with "transparency" and from "the bottom up."  Really.

  Granted, ICANN is not making a profit, but it is paying outrageous fees to 
some who are.  Hmmm..... pro bono and billing at cost... what does that mean?  
Cost at what rate, exactly?  Let's see those "at cost" figures from the Jones Day 
side of things.

Joe made a lot of cracks and levied insults, but did not provide anything 
substantive.  His defensiveness is to be expected, IMO.  He is, after all, being 
attacked by many.  

It does not change the facts, however.  From every account I have heard and 
read from those present at meetings and those who knew and worked with Jon 
Postel, he was, indeed, threatened and did, indeed, cave in to those who were 
determined to place the cartel in power.  Then he died tragically.   This was a 
man who was human, after all, and did his level best.  He was rather idealistic - 
a very good thing, IMO, and saw that government control over the ccTLDs was 
not the best idea for users.  And that is just one area where he was right.  
Gilmore is also correct in saying that Jon Postel wanted to see hundreds of 
TLDs opened to the public and put out a call for those who wished to operate 
them.  It's really a horrible shame that he passed away.  There would probably 
not have been a manufactured shortage of domains because .com would have 
been one of many available TLDs in the USG root. He did want to see 150 added 
quickly and more each year.

After Jon died, ICANN was a done deal with the board entrenched, a set of 
bylaws that would give the board license to change them at willc to grab power 
over the public use of the USG root and hand out monopolies in any future TLDs 
it might deign to allow to exist.  All this, without any meaningful voice of the vast 
majority of internet users, who are, after all, the most important ones - or 
certainly should be.  

"This point simply reveals Gilmore's lack of understanding of the law 
business...."  
I thought it was a profession.  Hmmm....  What, exactly was the position of 
the law firm prior to ICANN in terms of income and notariety?  How much 
has it grown since becoming ICANN's retained legal firm?

"...Gilmore and his more personally offensive colleagues. ..."
Might Gilmore and his colleagues feel the same about Joe Sims and his 
colleagues?

Now let's see. Karl's lawsuit is over the fact that a director should have 
unfettered access to all the corporation's records.  He should not have to sign 
something that restricts his duties and rights as a director and he should not 
have to ask the board's permission to have that access.  On many boards, there 
have been directors in collusion who would seek to prevent another director from 
accessing certain records - could be damaging to certain persons and entities.  
That is one reason why any board member has the duty and right to inspect 
those records in full and without signing for permission to do so.  Requiring his 
signature on that questionable document is just what is to be avoided.  
Distribution of confidential material is covered under law, so why should the 
board be involved in granting permission with that caveat?  If Karl were to break 
the law, he would be personally liable for it, as would any other board member 
who did the same.  Material that is not confidential (personnel, legal) should be 
open to inspection anyway. Every dime spent and every dime of income to the 
corporation should be public information.  Isn't it interesting that Jamie Love 
asked in Bucharest how much was being paid to Jones Day to defend against 
karl and was refused an answer?  Why the secrecy?

Gilmore was not off the mark in his interview, IMO.  Joe Sims is.  Shame on you.

Leah

--
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