At 11:20 PM 7/8/00, Pete Farmer wrote: >--- Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > GAO Whitewashes ICANN Investigation! > > > > www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf > > > > More comments to follow . . . > > >The GAO's investigation was aimed at the following: > >1) Was the formation of ICANN in accordance with the Administrative >Procedure Act and the Government Corporation Control Act? > >Conclusion: These acts are inapplicable to ICANN's formation. In other >words, the Department of Commerce did not violate legal procedures in >issuing the White Paper. > >2) How was ICANN's Interim Board selected and what role did the Department >of Commerce play in its selection? > >Conclusion: The ICANN Interim Board was selected primarily by one >individual (Jon Postel) and not the Department of Commerce. Hi Pete, I've claimed that the GAO has "whitewashed" it's investigation into ICANN. As one example, I described in detail to the GAO investigators how Esther Dyson revealed in public comments, that she was first approached for her board appointment by Ira Magaziner and Roger Cochetti at the Aspen Institute meeting, summer of 1998. This was well before ICANN was even formed, while the rest of the Internet community was doing the "round-the-world tour" (aka the IFWP meetings - www.ifwp.org) as orchestrated by Commerce. Where is this revealed in the GAO report? And this is only one example. There are many more improprieties that have been elided from the GAO report. Just consider the history of the Witness list: Mikki Barry provided comprehensive evidence of the gaming involved in the formation of ICANN, as per her Congressional testimony: http://www.domain-name.org/testimony722.html Michael Fromkin and David Post host the ICANN Watch website (www.icannwatch.org), where they have documented many other egregious actions of the ICANN board. Karl Aurbach has spent many hours documenting similar excesses by ICANN on the public lists, and Ronda Hauben has even written about her complaints: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/8369/1.html She has also conducted a radio interview, to be aired and published soon: www.fair.org I could go on, but you get the picture. >3) Did the Department of Commerce have the legal authority to enter into >agreements with ICANN and to participate in certain ICANN activities? > >Conclusion: Yes, the Department had such authority. > >4) Did DoC have a legal basis to expend funds to participate in ICANN's >proceedings and activities? > >Conclusion: Yes, it did have a legal basis. > >5) Does ICANN, as a "project partner," have authority under Office of >Management and Budget Circular A-25 to impose user fees to cover ICANN's >operating costs? > >Conclusion: OMB Circular A-25 does not apply to ICANN. > >6) Does the DoC have legal authority to transfer control of the >authoritative root server? > >Conclusion: The answer is not clear, but it's a moot point for now because >the Department has no current plans to effect such a transfer. > > >I take it from Jay's outcry of "whitewash" that he disputes the >conclusions. I am sure we all look forward to his reasoned analysis, built >upon a solid foundation in administrative law. Well, let me put it this way . . . If the excesses and egregious actions of Commerce and the ICANN board are not illegal, then our system is more broken than I thought :-( Jay. >Pete >__________________________________________ >Peter J. Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Director, Optical Networking >Strategies Unlimited >Mountain View, CA Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Strategies ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World ------------------------------------------------------- "We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle between corporate globalization and popular democracy." -- David Korten
