Hi Michael,
In my previous response, I copied David Post's:
Governing Cyberspace,
or
Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
Here's the rest of my reply, as promised:
At 05:32 PM 6/7/99 , Michael Schneider wrote:
>>In the past, Esther has claimed to be fighting for sound and transparent
>>processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive
>>processes as prescribed in the White Paper.
>>
>>Well, I'm not buying it any longer. In decision after decision, she has
>>voted with the rest of the ICANN Board to step on these ideals, and has
>>pursued an agenda that can only be described in a most contrarian way.
>>
>>The recently concluded Berlin meeting was her defining moment. Instead of
>>fighting to ensure a fair DNSO, she supported a gamed DNSO controlled by
>>those friendly to the gTLD-MoU that preceded ICANN. Then, in the now
>>familiar ICANN style, the ICANN Board gave this gamed DNSO their blessing
>>to approve the WIPO report.
>
>This statement bothers me in a number of ways:
>
>First, I had the impression in Berlin - for the first time - that the Board
>was presenting a common front and operating in masterly fashion. As you
>know, I've been a consistent critic of the processes leading to the
>selection of the current Board. Right up to this present moment, nobody has
>been able to give me a convincing explanation why other people with
>significantly more experience with regard to ICANN's responsibilities
>weren't appointed to the Board. There are other reasons as well to
>criticise the composition of the Board (as a representative of ISP
>interests I have to reiterate that we're clearly underrepresented).
>
>However - this is all ancient history now. The Board is up and running, and
>we should judge it simply by how well it does its job.
Agreed . . .
And as I understood it, this *interim* board
was supposed to work towards the vision as
outlined in the White Paper:
“We are looking for a globally and functionally representative organization,
operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that protect against
capture by self-interested factions, and that provides robust, professional
management. The new entity’s processes need to be fair, open, and
pro-competitive. And the new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to
reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders.” Becky Burr on
the White Paper,
<<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dnsburr.htm>http://www.ntia.doc.gov
/ntiahome/press/dnsburr.htm>
This they have not done -- not even close!
>And although I was
>critical at first, I've changed my opinion. For example, I thought
>Kraaijenbrink's appearance at the ICANN open meeting in Singapore was very
>good. He demonstrated that we aren't talking about people who are
>incompetent or biased - he showed clearly that he has his own views and
>isn't prepared to be pressed into serving any and every cause. I'm also
>willing to assign much more credibility to those members of the Board I've
>been dealing with lately than at the start. Esther Dyson, for example,
>acted very diplomatically during the runup to the Berlin meeting. In my
>view, she was particularly careful not to take sides prematurely (while I
>might have wished I could have won her over more easily, others felt
>exactly the same way).
>
>The Berlin meeting itself went relatively smoothly, I felt. Whether you're
>satisfied with the outcome or not, I don't think you can say that the Board
>gave preferential treatment to anybody. Naturally, I know that reports on
>meetings always reflect the speaker's own sense of achievement - but even
>so, if there was one thing the Board did this time, it was to stand by its
>proclaimed policies as far as reasonably possible. To this extent, I really
>can't understand your complaint.
Sometimes, when you're in the middle of a forest,
you only notice the trees that surround you. I'm
complaining about the forest.
I'm complaining about an *interim* board that has
already implemented many policy decisions. Decisions
that in effect claim ownership over the entire name
space. Decisions that result in taxation without
representation. Decisions that extend to the end-
users of the Internet, the very Netizens that this
board has refused representation to. And of course,
decisions made without any involvement from the
Internet community.
I'm complaining about an *interim* board that has
been dragging its feet on replacing itself with a
legitimate *initial* board. After months and months
of deliberations on a membership, we are now told
that we must have more studies, and we must now
recruit large numbers of uneducated Netizen's
before elections can take place.
>This brings me to the second point that bothers me somewhat. If I take your
>claim seriously that DNSO is "controlled by those friendly to the
>gTLD-MoU", then this applies to me as well, since I've been elected to the
>provisional Names Council. However, I can't imagine where you get the idea
>that I'm "friendly to the gTLD-MoU". Back in the IAHC days I was constantly
>criticising the lack of inclusiveness in the process (which you can see for
>yourself in numerous documents and minutes on equally numerous web sites).
>Again, in Geneva when the gTLD-MoU was signed, I strongly expressed my
>reservations about individual sections of the MoU and the way it was
>launched (to the point that several of those present had little good to say
>about me for some time afterwards). I was involved in IFWP, PRECISELY
>BECAUSE I felt the gTLD-MoU process wasn't open enough. The only thing I've
>tried to do is to be fair at all times and recognise good approaches where
>I see them.
>
>Even so, I can hardly be suspected of following some hidden agenda here.
>And looking round at the provisional Names Council I see other people who
>are above any suspicion (even if you regard POC members as devoid of all
>integrity by definition, which I by no means agree with). This very
>specifically applies to the representatives of the ISP constituency, who
>currently make up 16% of the total Names Council membership. There are also
>a number of prominent representatives of POC who aren't on the Names
>Council, although they were angling for this during the runup to the Berlin
>meeting. If the ICANN board was really as biased as you claim, it would -
>for example - have been simple to approve the group around David Maher as
>the non-commercial constituency. However, given the counterproposals by
>Sondow and Mueller, Dyson & co haven't taken this easy way out.
I'm complaining about an *interim* board that has
allowed all sorts of machinations to occur in the
DNSO constituency formation process. In effect,
this board has approved a Names Council *slate*,
one that is extremely likely to support their
recommendations to approve the WIPO report.
This is *not* LEGITIMATE governance.
This is CAPTURE, pure and simple.
>So why are you heading for a confrontation at this time and on this massive
>scale? Have I missed something I should know about?
Yes, Michael, I believe you have.
You have been mislead, as have many, that
ICANN is about some technical administrative
functions of the Internet. This *is* about
Internet governance, and nothing less than
LEGITIMATE governance will do.
The Internet represents the promise of our
future, as it empowers *individuals* as never
before. Even Esther Dyson has written about
how this empowerment will force existing
governments to respond to their people.
And it won't stop there. IMHO, the Internet
has the power to raise the consciousness of
the entire planet. And in so doing, it will
challenge just about every establishment
institution along the way.
Throughout history, new technology has often
had the power to change the existing order
of things. The Internet is no exception.
And while many have tried to control the
effects of an emerging technology, at best,
they have only been able to delay its impact.
The question we must ask ourselves is this:
Do we really want to delay the evolution of
an enlightened humanity?
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
