Re: [ga] lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a clue" or ICANN must go!

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Jeff Williams wrote:
 
> Previous Politech message:
> 
> "Salon interviews John Gilmore: 'It's time for ICANN to go'"
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03710.html
> 
> ---
> 
> Subject: Response to John Gilmore
> To: dave@farber.net, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:15:56 -0400
> 
> Since John Gilmore chooses to use my name ...

> As for the rest of Gilmore's version of history, here are the
> relevant facts:
> 
> 1.  Gilmore says he was involved in the process of creating the
> original ICANN bylaws, but that "they" ignored EFF's suggested
> wording changes to fix what it saw as a lack of accountability.

There's an archive of EFF papers on DNS issues at:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/

with a subdirectory for ICANN?IANA/IAHC stuff:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/

EFF did prpose some revised bylaws:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana_bylaws.html

> I have a very distinct recollection of those proposed changes,

Too bad it is innaccurate.

> and of at least one
> conversation with Gilmore on them; the particular provision
> that sticks out in my mind from the suggestions was his proposal
> that the ICANN bylaws incorporate the United Nations
> Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

You're likely thinking of this paper:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/19980323_eff_ntia.comments

As I read it, it suggests the net should have guarantees of free
speech at least as stromg as the UN UDNR, but does not suggest
incorporating that document.

> Gilmore is certainly
> correct that I was not enthusiastic about this suggestion, but
> perhaps others will not be surprised that neither was anyone
> else involved in the process, including Jon Postel.  In fact,
> I believe Jon made that point directly to Gilmore, who was
> then and remains today on the extreme fringe of rational thinking
> on ICANN issues.  The general reaction to his suggestions were
> that they were either unworkable, or as illustrated by the
> UN point, just plain silly.

I'd say that free speech and openness are central properties of the
net, well worth preserving. We can argue about the details, but that
clearly needs to be one of the principles.
 
> 2.  Gilmore's understanding of the Auerbach litigation is either
> incomplete or disengenuous. ...

Tell it to the judge, Joe.
--
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