Re: [wg-review] [Draft] Review Working Group's Executive Summary

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

To the chair and to all concerned:

I am going to unsubscribe from this list. The process is tainted beyond any
reasonable person's belief. Short deadlines are a way to stifle real study
of the problems presented here and are totally ridiculous. Those who set
this process up know this and we are fools to be manipuated at their
pleasure. This group has no power at all to make changes and isn't even
given enough time to make proper suggestions.

There is no real effort on ICANN's part or the NC's part to get any input
from the public. There is simply a process put into place to make it
"appear" as if they sought public opinion. It is a scam. Straght-forward and
simple. This process is designed to scam and delude people into thinking
that ICANN considers what the public wants when reaching their decisions.

As for my own efforts, I refuse to further the deceit by my participation in
it. Here we have examples of politics at it's very worst. ICANN is not a
legitimate nonprofit entity. They have participated in scamming the public
and the US Government into thinking they want to achieve any fairness for
the Individual Domain Name Holder or Individual User of the Internet. They
have represented Big Business, period.

I will continue to fight this fraudulent process on my own through my
Legislators in the US. Those within this process have underestimated what
the US Government can do in changing things. The governments of other
countries already realize this is a scam. The US has been slow to respond to
it's own Commerce Department's involvement here. That is not unusual. But I
plan to do my best to awaken the sleeping giant.

I would have been the last person to have sought government control or
intervention on the Internet before a peek into this process. Now I see no
way to influence real change from within this corrupt system. Therefore my
attempts will be from outside the current system and my main goal will be to
see ICANN bite the dust. The corruption is beyond anything that can be
remedied by mere bandaid proposals we now discuss.

I am not a stranger to influencing legislation when wrongs of this nature
occur. I have been involved in efforts before that resulted in legislation
that benefitted individuals. I know many legislators who take me serious
enough to sit down and talk with me directly. This is how I choose to try to
make the changes necessary. It will also be suggested strongly that
investigations be conducted into ICANN and other groups to see where
individual wrongdoing has occurred. I suspect many are receiving benefits
from Corporations that influence the decisions they have been making.

I also plan to alert the media to all of my own efforts as well as to this
process and the limited way in which ICANN garners public participation.
This has been no accident. This has been carefully done to discourage not to
encourage participation by individual users. They have been around long
enough and have enough resources to have better public participation. A
first year college student who just took his/her first class would have done
a better job at PR than has been done as far as gaining more public
involvement, yet the PR done to make it appear so has been expert. That
alone shows it has been orchestrated this way.

I am not scared of being sued or harassed by them. I state for the record
that ICANN has worked to defraud the public and at very best this effort has
been unethical. Illegal activities may have taken place as well by the very
Board Members who are supposed to look out for everyone's interests. There
are those on the NC and other entities that may have also worked to achieve
the same fraudulent appearance. The whole process is far from the
transparent process it should be.

The OPIW is now going to begin a campaign to shine a spotlight on these
wrongdoings. This is only the beginning. Anyone interested in joining me in
this effort is welcome to do so. The only thing I am interested in is
Individual Internet User's Rights, not just those with Domain Names. The
Internet was the first chance many small and first time businesses have had
in many years to compete with the Big Corporations. Through the use of
generic domain names, this was starting to happen. The Corporations have
used their influence with ICANN to steal those domain names on their behalf.
That is just one of the issues that will be addressed.

For those who choose to remain part of this process and to attempt to change
it from within, I applaud your efforts and wish you luck. I will always be
receptive to personal emails from those on this list who wish to discuss the
issues, but reading the drivel posted by those here who think this process
is working just fine is wasting my time. The fact they think people stupid
enough to believe their hogwash and believe they are not lining thier own
pockets makes them the ones who look ridiculous and stupid. That coupled
with the fact that it has been stated that the members of the NC should be
allowed to participate in a review that could affect the very existence or
nonexistence of the NC itself shows that self-interest and possible
self-dealing would be acceptable. That again is at the very least, unethical
and a conflict of interest. I'm not suggesting they not be allowed to read
the list or respond to questions directed at them, but the fact that some
have disrupted the proceedings here and wasted time as Ken Stubbs began
doing in the beginning, again shows they have no respect for individual
opinions or efforts and are only concerned about the interests of those that
pay them.

The fact they use this unproductive antique email method of garnering public
opinion also shows their effort to discourage participation. It was
suggested here many times that we switch to a forum to better communicate.
It has been ignored just like our opinion will be when they get back to the
"Club". They will pick through all of the work done here and find one or two
very small things they can comply with that won't affect their efforts to
control the Internet, then will announce to the press they have made drastic
changes the public has said they wanted. Even though their are less than 150
subscribers on this list, they will brag as to how they are considering
public opinion and striving to achieve transparency of process. The fact
there are less than 150 on this list can only go to prove their efforts to
suppress public opinion. Claiming they could not get more participation is a
lie. They could. They don't want it. They only want the appearance of having
it.

It was suggested they could subscribe people to the list through their ISP
or through their Registrars. That won't happen because those are two of the
entities that HAVE Board representation. Having an Individual's Constituency
is not to their advantage, nor is having the opinion of individuals be the
foremost consideration when ICANN's BoD makes decisions.

I apologize for the long post and also apologize that I will be deleting the
rest of the groups messages without reading the thoughtful comments you have
posted here. I simply am fed up with this whole process. As I said before,
my fight will continue and I will continue to support those trying to make
real changes. In other words, Kent. You wouldn't be one of those I support,
just in case you didn't understand what I meant in my last sentence. Your
posts have been self-serving and toward the status quo and I doubt by
reading what you have written that you have ever considered individual's
rights worth considering and probably haven't experienced individual thought
very often.

As for Miss Park, I wish you luck. They don't seem to take you very
seriously. I sympathize with your efforts to reach them. Personally I think
you have truly tried to concern yourself with these issues and do wish some
changes to be made. I hope you can achieve what you are trying to achieve.

I think an alliance with the Alternate or Inclusive roots and the ccTLDs
would be very successful regardless of what the opinions are from ICANN
groups. We'll see if that can be achieved. ICANN isn't concerned for other
country's rights to prosper any more than they are for individuals.

Good night and good luck to all.

Good luck to all who continue to try this from the inside.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: [wg-review] [Draft] Review Working Group's Executive Summary


> Review Working Group's Executive Summary
> version 0.1
>
>                                                    2001. 1. 14
>                                                         YJ Park
>
> Table of Contents
>
> 1. Introduction
> 2. Staus of Review WG
>     a) Membership
>     b) Mailing List and related information.
>     c) Charter Finalization
>     d) NC Review Task Force Questionaire was circulated with sub-titles on
> Dec. 28.
>     e) Polls and Review WG Co-Chair Election has been being carried out by
> Review WG
> 3. Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.
>     a) Do we need Constituency?
>     b) Balanced or Imbalanced Constituencies?
>     c) How to add new Constituencies?
>     d) Consensus, is measurable?
>     e) Who is going to pay?
> 4. Proposal to Review TF and NC
>     a) Proposal to Review TF
>     b) Proposal to NC
> 5. Outlook of Review WG
>     a) Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
>     b) First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
>     c) Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
> ===========================================================
> 1. Introduction
>
> Appreciating Names Council collegues who have agreed to form Review
Working
> Group
> on December 19 during NC teleconferece after almost five months'
discussion
> on DNSO
> Review, I would like to extend my hearty gratitude for their proactive
> cooperation especially
> to current NC Chair, Ken Stubbs, new NC Chair, Philip Sheppard, NC Review
> Task Force
> Chair, Theresa Swinehart and Louis Tuton who sent Press Release to
> "icann-announce" list
> (4900+ recipients) and various relevant lists in the DNSO on Dec 22 and
Dec
> 23.
>
> Even though I have been designated as Chair of Review Working Group, there
> are many folks
> whose credit should be recognized in forming Review WG. First, GA Chair,
> Roberto Gaetano,
> as one of Review TF members, who has consistantly brought this issue to
both
> Review Task Force
> and GA since Yokohama meeting, Elisabeth Porteneuv, initially as DNSO
> Secretariat and later
> as NC member of Review TF, Peter de Blanc, Dany Vandromme who have
supported
> this group
> until this group was formed.
>
> For the last, I owe gratefulness to Review Working Group members who have
> traded off between
> their willingness to review DNSO with sincerity and their Christmas
Holiday
> and New Year Holiday
> due to pressed time given by NC's decision. Therefore, Review Working
Group
> could have only
> 23 working days(From Dec. 23 to Jan 14) including Christmas and New Year
> Day.
>
> 2. Staus of Review WG
>
> a) Membership
>
> Review WG has currently 140 members. On the other hand, there have been
112
> unsubscribers
> who are conjectured as At-Large members who have little experience and
> knowledge with DNSO.
> FYI, there are 7 NC members: Peter de Blanc, Elisabeth Porteneuv, Ken
> Stubbs, Philip Sheppard,
> Erica Roberts, Theresa Swinehart, YJ Park and 2 Board members: Karl
> Auerbach, Alejandro Pisanty
> who have on and off responded to WG members to achive its true-sense DNSO
> review.
>
> b) Mailing List and related information.
>
> Membership approval has been made by wg-owner, myself, mannualy through
> majordomo system
> without filtering since Dec 23. There have been some delays, however
usually
> it takes one day or
> two days to be approved to subscribe to this list. Therefore, around 252
> approval processes have
> been needed and right now this function is left with DNSO Listadmin due to
> email exchange troubles
> caused by ISP.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
> Mails in Archive: 1249 (As of 2001 Jan 13 15:34:34 local time zone is
> Central European)
> Therefore, the average number per day is 57 messages(22/1249) which proves
> how keen
> Review WG members have been about DNSO review.
>
> Review WG is composed of people from many from North America, Europe and a
> few from
> Asia, Latin America and Africa. As we experineced in previous WG
discussion,
> most active
> participants are from US, Europe, New Zealand and Australia who have no
> problems with
> reading 57 "English" email messages a day and possibly respond to some of
> them in "English".
>
> c) Charter Finalization
>
> Before NC Press Release was issued, the concerns that Review WG needs more
> substantial working
> days and there is no need to highlight the chasing deadline, Jan 15th had
d
> been delivered, which was
> not reflected in the press release. Therefore, Review WG has had some
> difficulties with pinning down
> its own charter yet. Instead, Review WG started with the core issues such
as
> "Constituencies".
>
> Compared to normal lifetime of Working Groups, NC's decision to let Review
> WG have less than
> one month working days is awaiting NC's reconsideration for its extension.
> NC should remind itself
> of how hard to garner responses from constituencies and GA when NC
appealed
> each group to
> submit its position.
>
> Right now Review WG has referred to Terms of Reference version 0.3 which
was
> also presented to
> NC before Dec NC teleconference. However, given the assumption that NC is
> going to extend Review
> WG's working days, Review WG is needed to finalize its own Charter as soon
> as possible.
>
> d) NC Review Task Force Questionaire was circulated with sub-titles on
Dec.
> 28.
>
> As requested by NC, Review WG first started with NC Review TF's
> questionaire, which was distributed
> to the list with 10 sub-titles to facilitate discussion. However, out of
ten
> the most hottest issue is
> 3. [Constituencies] namely DNSO Structure itself. They are 1.[Charter] 2.
> [Outreach] 3. [Constituencies]
> 4. [GA] 5. [Working Group] 6. [Secretariat] 7. [names Council] 8. [WGs and
> NC] 9. [DNSO Quality]
> 10.[The Board and DNSO]
>
> In addition to 10, another four topics have been updated by WG members
such
> as 11. [IDNH],
> 12. [STLD] 13.[DNSO/GA Chair Election] 14. [By Consensus]
>
> The second spotlight went to Names Council since NC's roles in the
> decision-making process can be
> functioned as either lubricant or blockage.
>
> Big demands on "clarification" in the mailing list show us the fact that
> there have been lack of communication
> in DNSO i.e. between the Board members and DNSO stakeholders, between NC
> members and DNSO
> stakeholders, between NC members and Board members, and between DNSO
> stakeholders themselves, too.
>
> e) Polls and Review WG Co-Chair Election has been being carried out by
> Review WG
>
> Four topics have been polled by WG members under Greg Burton's
volunteer.(As
> of Jan. 13)
>
> The poll for 14. Consensus is now published at
> http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24p05h3_a
> The results are at http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24p05h3_a
>
> The poll for 7. Names Council is now up at
> http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24l3plu_a
>  The results are at http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24l3plu_a
>
> The poll for 3. Constituencies is still at
> http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a
> with results at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a .
>
> The poll for 4. GA is still at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p41u8xq_a
> with results at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p41u8xq_a .
>
> Straw Poll on Review WG needs more time was carried out with unaimity by
20
> members whose result
> was circulated in the Names Council list on Jan 5 with options such as
> Option A, Feb 20 : 8 members
> Option B, March 4 : 10 members Option C: member's own independent
suggetion
> 2.
>
> Working Group Co-Chair election
> Co-Chair Election with four candidates has been being carried out by
Review
> WG members under
> J J Teernstra's volunteer expecting its result until January 15th.
>
> 3. Main DNSO-related Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.
>
> Regarding issue presentation, it would be more neutral to submit different
> people's perspective in the appendix
> rather than describing each issue by myself which can lead to some biased
> views.
>
> a) Do we need Constituency?
>
> b) Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
>
> c) How to add new Constituencies?
>
> d) Consensus, is measurable in the decision-making process?
>
> e) Who is going to pay?
>
> 4. Proposal to Review TF and NC
>
> a) Proposal to Review TF
>
> As soon as this report is delivered to Review TF, Review TF members are
> expected to participate in
> Review TF's report which should outline TF members' consensus. Since
Review
> TF has four working
> days to come up with report on Jan 19th, if it is needed, Review TF may
have
> a teleconference to reach
> their own consensus.
>
> b) Proposal to NC
>
> As emphasized earlier, NC is recommended to reconsider extending Review
WG's
> working days.
> Therefore, Jan NC teleconference is expected to exchange NC's general
views
> based upon half-done
> NC Review TF report which still awaits Review WG's bottom-up
> consensus-building process.
>
> Without substantial consensus-building process efforts before NC, NC's
> recommendation to the Board
> is going to be empty voices which have no legitimacy nor mandate. NC needs
> to reaffirm the fact that
> without constituency and its members, NC is meaningless get-together.
>
> 5. Outlook of Review WG
>
> a) Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
>
> ========================================
> Feb 9 - 14.  Review WG Position Paper Submission
> Feb 14 - 19 Review WG Position Paper Comment Period.
> Feb 20         Review WG Position Paper Delivered to NC
> ========================================
>
> b) First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
>
> March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday
>
> c) Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
>
> June
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html