Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Mr. Langston's remarks are intemperate and irresponsible.  They are, 
sadly, consonant with what WG-C has done (or, just as importantly 
and just as sadly, failed to do).

>
>>>> "Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org> 04/18/00 05:56PM >>>
>
>In the teleconference just now, they decided:
>
>1)  That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that
>    go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead

Certainly it's hard to deny that WG-C resorted to coercive polling rather 
than rational discussion.  Vote-counting is not a substitute for consensus.  
It also bears observing that the timing of the final poll did not conduce 
the preparation of minority reports.  Isn't it odd that after all this time, no 
means were found at the end to enable the presentation of diverse 
positions and rationales?

>    (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that
>    "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results 
>    should be discounted),

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

>
>2)  That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3  Abs: 0), but
>
>3)  That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs:  2)

It would be interesting to know if the NC thought that 6-10 is too few, 
too many, or both :-)  It would also be interesting to know if the NC 
was pleased, displeased, or indifferent to WG-C's failure to address 
parts of its charter (such as the question "Which ones?" with respect 
to the new GTLDs).

>
>They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly
>support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those 
>unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices
>being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community.

It's a scary thought that instead of protecting famous marks, WG-B 
would essentially make all marks equal during the sunrise scramble.  I 
do not think that the ICANN Board is stupid enough to fall for this 
proposal.

>
>Pat yourselves on the back, folks.  We've just wasted a year of our
>lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making
>these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it.

Well, at least Mr. Langston refrained from saying "to hell with our _fine_ 
work" 'cos it certainly wasn't that.

>
>And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those
>speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present
>Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to
>WG-B.

Well, one issue on which Mr. Langston and I come out at the same 
point is that Mr. Shepard is not good for the Internet.

>
>They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless.

It does not take a Buddha to recognize that you can't make a mirror by 
licking a slate; and it does not take a PhD psychologist to recognize 
that you don't build consensus among enemies by allowing them free 
rein to scream at each other for a year.

>We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with
>the report, and then opened it to public comment.

Probably more; the WG has marginalized itself; it certainly has not 
covered itself with glory.
>
>Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere
>and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations".  Must be the
>US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh?

After seeing the trouble that the Small Business Administration has had 
with its roundtables, I'm not even a little surprised at this outcome and 
I don't attribute it to any bad intentions on anyone's part.

Here's the part that I think it was especially improvident to say in public:
>
>One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the
>stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency
>and their deep pockets can do about it.  Keep throwing your muscle
>around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to
>operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting
>mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics,
>organize, and go on strike.  And unlike a factory floor, your chances
>of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery
>for you are significantly smaller.
>

Readers should be aware that the FBI pays people (no, I'm _not_ 
one of them) and runs robots (I'm not one of these, either :-) to look 
for foolish statements like this.  I believe the Treasury Department 
has a program along these lines as well.  Inviting people to commit 
biological impossibilities in a public forum simply brands one as crude, 
but making statements about interference with the operation of 
computers connected to the Internet (such interference is a federal 
crime, in case you were unaware of it) raises questions about one's 
judgment.  I wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent.

I'm going to begin working on a personal submission to the ICANN 
Board.  I'll post it here shortly.  I'll be happy to revise it to include 
comments from people I respect (y'all know whom I include in that 
category) and I might even listen to those whom I'm convinced have 
clam chowder instead of synapses, though those of you in the latter 
category should not hold your breath.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson 
Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************