At 09:45 AM 6/18/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
>Jay, you're back! Short retirement. Let me see if I got this straight:
>you and 6 of your best friends decided that this was an important
>distinction, even though it didn't exist anywhere else in the original
>documents, and because you think it is an important distinction, anyone who
>does not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by
>Fenello/BWG/IRSC)? Glad to have you back; the discussion was starting to
>trend dangerously toward substance.
Hi Joe,
Despite your wishes to the contrary, I'm
not gone, I'm just not participating in
your captured ICANN fun house ;-)
But, I'm glad you've asked this question,
because the history behind ICANN is every
bit as important as the documents used to
justify its current wayward path. In case
you've forgotten:
At 01:57 AM 5/19/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>When the White Paper was finally announced, it was considered a workable
>document by almost everyone. Unfortunately, the games and takeover attempts
>were hardly over, as I reported in my testimony to Congress on June 10th
>(http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress.htm).
>
>After the White Paper was announced, the Internet community quickly responded
>by organizing the "International Forum on the White Paper"
>(http://www.ifwp.org).
>
>Even this process was fraught with gaming and takeover attempts. First, MoU
>supporters refused to participate. Then, as more and more large organizations
>jumped on board, the MoU supporters decided to participate to "torpedo" the
>process. (Fortunately, that didn't work -- I guess its hard to stand up in a
>room and argue for *un*fair processes ;-)
>
>But even with all of the progress made by the IFWP, even with all of the
>consensus that was generated through all of the meetings, Jon Postel continued
>to ignore the consensus, and with the help of Joe Simms and others, drafted
>multiple iterations of their own proposals for Internet governance.
>
>This came to a head shortly after the Singapore IFWP meeting. Many wanted to
>finish the IFWP process by having a final meeting where a draft proposal for
>Internet governance could be completed. That's when Mike Roberts (current
>ICANN president) lead the effort to destroy the IFWP. He was successful.
>
>On September 30th, 1998, the U.S. Government issued a cryptic announcement
>regarding ICANN's intention to submit an application to assume the role of New
>Co as described in the White Paper
>(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dns93098.htm).
>
>While there was still a tremendous amount of opposition to ICANN, the Internet
>community took comfort that the release indicated that competing proposals
>would also be accepted. Since Ira had always said that the U.S. Government
>would not choose between competing proposals, many felt that the remaining
>concerns would be addressed in the ICANN proposal.
Contrary to your dismissive comments, there
were many more than six people objecting to
ICANN. In fact, a large portion of the IFWP
participants were up in arms that ICANN was
being proposed as Newco, especially given
the numerous deficiencies with the ICANN
bylaws.
Surely you remember those? You and I spoke
about them, and Ira and Becky held multiple
conference calls between you and Open-RSC and
BWG about them. Continuing:
>The problems with ICANN were summarized in my written testimony to Congress on
>October 6th, 1999 (http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress3.txt). I described
>the problems with ICANN as follows:
> - The draft was finalized behind closed doors.
> - The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the IFWP
>process.
> - The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any open
>nomination process or discussion. [When a Congressman directly asked Joe Simms
>how the board was selected, he waffled and said he wasn't sure. Later, at the
>first open ICANN Board meeting, at least one of the Board member revealed that
>it was Joe Simms who first approached them!!!]
> - It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the ICANN
>board is only accountable to itself.
> - It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically the
>desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against capture, and
>fair, open and pro-competitive processes.
>
>When it became clear that neither Jon Postel, Joe Simms, nor any other ICANN
>supporter would seriously entertain changing any of the unacceptable provisions
>of their draft by-laws, several people and organizations stepped forward with
>competing plans.
And those "unacceptable provisions" were *quite*
objectionable. They allowed the ICANN Board to do
whatever they wanted, without any oversight from
anyone! They had no provisions for a membership
(which I might remind you was fought at every step
in this process, and would not even be in the current
bylaws if it weren't for Open-RSC and BWG)! They
had no provisions to protect minority voices! And
they had no "sunshine" provisions!
Finally, it would give all these powers over the
Internet infrastructure to a Board that appeared
of a "virgin birth!" That's why Open-RSC and BWG
made an issue of the "initial vs. interim" Board
issue, and that's why we both submitted our own
by-laws!
>What followed was a series of discussions between the various draft submitters,
>and the Commerce Department. Ira even went so far as to issue a letter
>(http://www.iperdome.com/press/ira.txt) to the ICANN drafters highlighting
>deficiencies, and suggesting that they needed to work towards consensus with
>the BWG and the ORSC.
I guess Ira was one of my "6 best friends" ;-)
>After almost a month of conference calls with Ira, Commerce, ORSC, BWG, and the
>new ICANN Board, no consensus ever emerged. Instead, Commerce agreed to bless
>ICANN with continuing oversight as outlined in a new MoU between them.
>(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm)
>
>Given the MoU, and given the assurances by Becky Burr and Esther Dyson, most of
>the Internet community was willing to give ICANN the benefit of the doubt, and
>support the ICANN process.
>
>But we have been lead astray . . .
Joe, it is patently clear to me that you have done
everything in your power to prevent the minority
voices from having *any* say in ICANN. Through a
process of incrementalism, ICANN has been structured
so that the people who propped up this puppet Board,
will continue to pull their strings long into the
future.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
P.S. This wouldn't happen to be you, Joe, would it:
<http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/023.html>
>Hi Kerry,
>
>ICANNs position is subterfuge at best.
>
>The initial vs. interim board distinction
>was an issue because ORSC and BWG made it
>one. We were concerned that this board,
>formed from a "virgin birth," would make
>decisions of substance before the Internet
>community could appoint representatives.
>
>It is now apparent that our concerns were
>well founded :-(
>
>Jay.
>
>
>At 04:29 PM 6/16/99 , Kerry Miller wrote:
>>
>>Esther wrote,
>>
>>> NSI has promoted the notion that ICANN somehow has violated the
>>> White Paper by having an "initial" Board rather than an "interim"
>>> Board. This argument is pointless. The White Paper calls for the
>>> consensus entity that became ICANN to "appoint, on an interim
>>> basis, an initial Board of Directors (an Interim Board)" (emphasis
>>> in original]. This "initial" Board was to serve until it
>>> established "a system of electing a Board of Directors." Thus, the
>>> terms "initial" and "interim" were clearly synonymous in the White
>>> Paper.
>>
>>
>>Article V: Section 1 indeed speaks of an "Initial Board":
>>
>>The initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board")
>>shall consist of [a] nine At Large members, [b] the President (when
>>appointed) and [c] those Directors that have been selected in
>>accordance with these bylaws by any Supporting Organization(s)
>>that exists under Section 3(a) of Article VI during the term of any of
>>such At Large members. The At Large members of the Initial
>>Board shall serve until September 30, 1999, unless by a two-thirds
>>(2/3) vote of all the members of the Board that term is extended...
>>
>>
>>Since only the at-large members and yourself are currently sitting,
>>minus the remaining Directors indicated in clause c, beginning with
>>the conjunction 'and,' it seems to me clear that *as yet* INCANNs
>>*Initial Board does not yet exist, and that it significantly clarifies
>>the process if this 'at large' (not to say ad-hoc) half of the Initial
>>Board were designated as something else, for instance, 'Interim
>>Board. Do you not agree that when the (conscientious) history
>>books are written, they will wish to make some such distinction --
>>for instance, to make it perfectly clear that amendments to the
>>bylaws (not to mention certain other statements of policy) were
>>made without the participation of any representatives selected by
>>the organizations membership?
>>
>>(You may be interested to know that when I suggested this to Mike
>>Roberts, (3 June) he responded (which in itself is more than some
>>do!): "The Board will grow incrementally as the SO's add their
>>Directors, and as the at large elections are held. I don't see any
>>useful distinction between what the board does or doesn't do during
>>any particular stage and I doubt that history will either."
>>-- that is, whether there are member representatives or not is
>>apparently not a useful distinction. May we infer that whether he
>>carries the title of President of this board is also not very useful?)
>>
>>In particular, when you say
>>> The White Paper specifically called on the "initial" Board to
>>> formulate the necessary consensus policies to allow competition to
>
>>> be introduced as quickly as possible.
>>
>>doesnt it strike you as not merely "quick," but downright premature
>>for 9 appointed members to proceed to do the work of 19 elected
>>members? Do you not see that the problems you attribute to NSI
>>may be caused largely by your own Board's pre-emption of the
>>process? That the 'fierce resistance' you meet is simply because
>>you're not doing it right? That if you had not been in quite such a
>>hurry, you might not only have properly -- that is, on technical
>>grounds -- refused to accept their extension of nondisclosure
>>agreements to
>>
>>> the experiences of the ICANN-accredited registrars now
>>> attempting to open up the domain-name registration business
>>> to competition
>>-- but had wide public support for the 'delay' a showdown at that
>>time (instead of the present backhanded attack) might have
>>caused?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>kerry
>>
>> "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E
>>Dyson.
>>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>-----------------------------------------------
>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>
