RE: [wg-review] Intake from the GA ML

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Your points concerning the specific problem areas within ICANN are
well-taken. It is not that I do not favor oversight. Rather, I have serious
concerns for the future legal status of a quasi-independent corporation that
operates as an arm of the Executive branch of the United States government,
but is ostensibly an international body. Why are American tax payers
underwriting ICANN by paying for the DoC to oversee ICANN? Then, there is
the question of ICANN's failure to provide the due process for its
decision-making. More troubling, I am unaware of what federal law governs
the actions of ICANN. On what basis, is oversight asserted? Can ICANN ignore
the DoC? Why? Why not? What about the concerns of the EU? It seems to me we
heading further down a path that could lead to more of the issues you raised
rather than less. For the time being let the DoC do what it may to put ICANN
on a more accountable footing, but let us realize that doing so is a mere
band-aid or patch, not a solution. At least, this is how I see it.

Rod

www.cyberspaces.org
rod@cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:50 AM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: brianappleby@netscape.net; terastra@terabytz.co.nz; jo-uk@rcn.com;
> webmaster@babybows.com; wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Intake from the GA ML
>
>
> Dr. Dixon,
>
> Your logic seems impeccable until one considers the underlying
> problem and that
> is that ICANN is not inept but corrupt.  Let us clean up
> organized crime by
> having them investigate themselves, I do not think so.
> You cannot expect ordinary netizens to buy into the argument that
> the work this
> group did in initial reports was changed so dramatically, that
> Auerbach at the
> Melbourne BoD meeting, said it was was not the same report he
> read, and expect
> them to believe the retooling was an organizational accident. And
> that by self
> analysis they can fix the problem.
> You cannot run an at large election and then declare that results
> will not be
> effective because you do not like them and declare legitimacy, or
> accident.
> You cannot sign verisign deals in direct conflict with your
> enabling contract
> and say let us understand what we did wrong and fix it.
> You cannot have members of staff telling the board and
> membership/non-membership
> that as a collective they do not understand their coporation and
> then study the
> membership to find out what is wrong.
> You cannot obstruct the public airing of NC meetings and then say
> we did not
> know they could be made public for free, after two years.
> You cannot have a certain body within the organization tell
> another what they
> want, and have it totally ignored because staff says so, and say
> we did not know
> how can we make it better.
>
> Someone othe than the fox has to watch the henhouse, before all
> the chickens are
> dead.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
>
> > I think we all agree that as a practical matter your points are
> correct. Of
> > course, for those who have observed the growth and devleopment of
> > organizations, we might also agee that it is highly likely that as the
> > current Internet governance structure becomes entrenched, it
> will take on a
> > life of its own, and it will be more difficult to alter or remove it for
> > something better. Hence, I do not think it wise at all for this WG to
> > express support for permanent congressional oversight of ICANN.
> >
> > In fact, I think the U.S. Congress might need to reconsider
> whether the U.S.
> > has sufficiently removed itself from the Internet governance
> business in the
> > first instance. That is not to say, however, that ICANN's
> current activities
> > do not require DoC or congressional scrutiny. The current
> framework seems to
> > provide for such scrutiny, and there seems to be significant
> need for it. In
> > that respect, we might want to recommend that this oversight be
> extended for
> > a temporary time period while ICANN undergoes a self-study on
> governance.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > www.cyberspaces.org
> > rod@cyberspaces.org
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: brianappleby@netscape.net [mailto:brianappleby@netscape.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:54 PM
> > > To: rod@cyberspaces.org
> > > Cc: terastra@terabytz.co.nz; brianappleby@netscape.net; jo-uk@rcn.com;
> > > webmaster@babybows.com; wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Intake from the GA ML
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Working Group Compatriots,
> > >
> > > My thoughts lean towards the pragmatic and simplistic but I don’t
> > > think that is a negative in this case.
> > >
> > > What is lacking in ICANN is accountability and responsibility.
> > >
> > > As the child of the Dept. of Commerce, ICANN is only currently
> > > and ultimately accountable to the US federal government.  Just
> > > because we don’t want it to be this way in the future does not
> > > make it untrue today.
> > >
> > > Who created ICANN?
> > >
> > > Who has the power to fundamentally alter it?
> > >
> > > Who can replace if it is necessary?
> > >
> > > Most importantly, who can force ICANN to live up to the
> promises it made?
> > >
> > > If I don’t answer these rhetorical questions here it will
> > > probably cause confusion: it is the US government.
> > >
> > > Many of the problematic issues we now suffer with were raised and
> > > addressed during testimonies to US Congress.  (I can hunt down
> > > the links but I’m sure others have them on very handy and can
> > > share their references).
> > >
> > > Roughly and simply from memory, ICANN leaders promised to open up
> > > elections for the BoD seats on a specific time frame.  A promise
> > > which was not lived up to and indeed is in jeopardy with the
> > > clean-slate review of the @Large membership/elections policies.
> > >
> > > Promises were made to US Congress that open competition would
> > > prevail, replacing the monopoly relationship ICANN had (still
> > > has) with NSI.  Another promise which came up short.
> > >
> > > Promises were made before approval was granted (or lack of
> > > dis-approval) but where is Congress now that the promises they
> > > received have become lies and empty words?
> > >
> > > The US government has a role to play to help set things right
> > > again so that many of the sub-issues can be dealt with as they
> > > should have been in the first place.  An obvious example is the
> > > requirement of ensuring new constituencies are taken seriously
> > > and allowed to be recognized as legitimate, having gone through
> > > the prescribed process outlined in ICANN’s own rulebooks.
> > >
> > > I’m not saying the US government should take control.  But they
> > > can make sure ICANN follows the rules.
> > >
> > > The people, everyone everywhere, should have top authority and
> > > priority for all future Internet policy decisions and
> > > organizational requirements.  I’m saying Congress should do a
> > > clean-slate review of the realities as they exist today as
> > > compared to the original promises and assurances.  Once the
> > > machine (ICANN organization/operations) is running smoother, we
> > > can use the newly leveled playing field as a more firm foundation
> > > to extend and fully internationalize the organization itself.
> > >
> > > OK it is true, we can’t expect to much either but give a
> > > Congressional representative/Senator a good issue to run with,
> > > they’ll play to public sentiment while they make themselves
> > > famous in the process, it can be a win-win-win situation.
> > > Through effective organization of people such as ourselves into a
> > > united political force (inclusive for everyone, not just US
> > > voters) we can help shape the process by more fairly defining the
> > > issues themselves (PR stuff) and educating the public as to what
> > > is fair and right and just.
> > >
> > > Ultimately the organizations which govern the Internet must be
> > > inclusive and truly international with the best interests of all
> > > as their guiding vision.  I think it will take years in best-case
> > > scenarios to create a truly international and functional
> > > organization to effectively be up and running to replace a
> > > US-based ICANN organization – this must be done, but as everyone
> > > has seen, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot, of discussion,
> > > debate, power struggling, etc. to be done before a good
> > > international organization can be built from the ground up.
> > >
> > > Best Regards to all,
> > > Brian Appleby
> > > brianappleby@netscape.net
> > >
> > > "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It might be a good idea to have one nation's legislature --
> > > particularly the
> > > > U.S. Congress -- perform oversight of ICANN's current
> > > activities, but this
> > > > may not be a prudent long term solution, and we should be
> cautious in
> > > > considering the matter.
> > > > Rod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    >>The people are everyones constituency and the source
> of all power.
> > > >    >>
> > > >    >>But frankly, I believe what we need to stop the dike from
> > > bursting, a
> > > >    >crisis of the short-term, is for top-down change in the form of
> > > > dedicated,
> > > >    >educated US Congressional oversight with a splash of
> judicial-esque
> > > >    >judgement.  I think a permanent Congressional sub-committee
> > > needs to be
> > > >    >established whos primary role and responsibility is to
> > > ensure that ICANN
> > > >    >remains faithful to the commitments it made when it was
> > > established and
> > > >    >that the stated ideals are maintained and the goals are
> achieved.
> > > >    >>
> > > >    >
> > > >    >I used the same dam bursting analogy  talking to Pindar
> > > Wong, who spoke
> > > > for
> > > >    >the @large committee in Melbourne. He was aware, so  ICANN
> > > must be aware
> > > > of
> > > >    >this crisis potential too.
> > > >    >This is why they have called on a heavyweight like Carl
> > > Bildt to act as
> > > >    >judge in the coming fight about @large representation. The
> > > Board is now
> > > >    >divided.
> > > >    >
> > > >    >>A blind man could easily see how far away ICANN has
> > > wandered from the
> > > > path
> > > >    >which was set for them.  It is possible that the US
> > > Congress might even
> > > > be
> > > >    >able to see it too?
> > > >    >>
> > > >    >Yes, the interim Board driven  ICANN has strayed. But the
> > > struggle for
> > > >    >control of ICANN's direction has only just begun.  The U.S.
> > > politicians
> > > >    >need to be sensitive to the other 40 -odd governmental
> > > players (the GAC)
> > > >    >too, not only to their six powerful Multinationals or
> their American
> > > >    >constituents.
> > > >    >
> > > >    >We have to be watchful that handing the reins or the
> whip to U.S.
> > > >    >politicians, is not going to end the global character of
> > > ICANN or lead
> > > > us
> > > >    >to even worse strife than we are now.
> > > >    >After all, as much respect as we all have for the U.S.
> > > Constitution, we
> > > >    >know that democracy in the real world is about the rule of
> > > money as much
> > > > as
> > > >    >it is here and now in ICANN.
> > > >    >
> > > >    >But I much appreciate your thoughtful posting, even if it
> > > does give me
> > > > that
> > > >    >slightly hopeless feeling.
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >    >--Joop--
> > > >    >Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> > > >    >Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> > > >    >Developer of    The Polling Booth
> > > >    >www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >    >--
> > > >    >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
> > > >    >
> > > >    >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
> > http://webmail.netscape.com/
> >
> > --
> > 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