Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 07:33 AM 9/11/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: >Dave Farber wrote: >> >> If ICANN fails it >>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >>must make it work. >> > >Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I >posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN *model* >was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that is >the source of so much controversy is one that began with several insiders >hand-picking a group of supposed DNS newbies who were, in turn, secretive, >clueless and easily swayed. Hi Dave, I have to agree with Ellen. In fact, your role as a member of ITAG, as someone who was intimately involved in the secret, back room deals that resulted in ICANN, makes your current comments somewhat disingenuous. I would like to continue to believe that you have the best interest of the Internet at heart. But when you complain about the blatant abuses of ICANN, while you continue to support it because "ICANN is the best of the alternatives available", you are sealing our collective fate. When you support an organization that ignores its own rules to pursue an agenda, an organization that approves rule changes *after* the fact to justify its actions, it is only a matter of time before these same "procedures" are used against you! And when you consider that ICANN is still in its courtship period pending the full transfer of authority from the U.S. Government, just wait until after the honeymoon! Anyone who thinks that ICANN will become more reasonable *after* it has consolidated power had better study history. IMHO & FWIW, Jay. >What litmus test would you apply to determine whether ICANN has failed? >IMHO, ICANN is a failure, has been a failure since Day One, and will always >be regarded as a failure and denied the respect it so desperately seeks >because of its hubris, arrogance or ineptness, take your pick. > >ICANN failed as soon as it: > >- announced its "initial" board selected through a secret process that did >not allow community input >- promulgated its first bylaws which did not use the IFWP consensus points >as a touchstone; >- held its first closed board meeting; >- focused on policymaking instead of establishing a membership and voting >process; >- established accreditation requirements for registrars that have policy >implications for domain name registrants; >- established a gerrymandered structure of constituencies; >- denied individuals (arguably the largest constituency in the Internet >community) any representation on the policy recommending body; >- violated its own bylaws in the conduct of its activities; >- used its unelected interim position to extend the terms of its members; and >- allowed itself to be captured by a coalition of ISOC and IP interests. > >ICANN arrived on the DNS scene as a stillborn puppy. This is why your >assertion that "we must make it work" falls on deaf ears. Sorry, but that >dog won't hunt. > > >Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook >Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com >+1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 >Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age > > Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Dave Farber wrote: > > If ICANN fails it >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >must make it work. > Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN *model* was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that is the source of so much controversy is one that began with several insiders hand-picking a group of supposed DNS newbies who were, in turn, secretive, clueless and easily swayed. What litmus test would you apply to determine whether ICANN has failed? IMHO, ICANN is a failure, has been a failure since Day One, and will always be regarded as a failure and denied the respect it so desperately seeks because of its hubris, arrogance or ineptness, take your pick. ICANN failed as soon as it: - announced its "initial" board selected through a secret process that did not allow community input - promulgated its first bylaws which did not use the IFWP consensus points as a touchstone; - held its first closed board meeting; - focused on policymaking instead of establishing a membership and voting process; - established accreditation requirements for registrars that have policy implications for domain name registrants; - established a gerrymandered structure of constituencies; - denied individuals (arguably the largest constituency in the Internet community) any representation on the policy recommending body; - violated its own bylaws in the conduct of its activities; - used its unelected interim position to extend the terms of its members; and - allowed itself to be captured by a coalition of ISOC and IP interests. ICANN arrived on the DNS scene as a stillborn puppy. This is why your assertion that "we must make it work" falls on deaf ears. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 07:26 PM 9/10/99 , Diane Cabell wrote: >The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through >Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that. That's entirely separate from "Internet governance." The major intellectual property players in Washington have always played a dominant role irrespective of the technology, and will continue to do so. Any Internet related regimes will be determined by Congress and the Judiciary. Nothing else matters, so it may as well be partitioned off, and forgotten. They are also not the problem. --tony
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
- Original Message - From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN () > Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? > After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just > directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet > policy if ICANN falls. > > I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would > have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big > business. > > --gregbo The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta & Lund LLP Boston, MA
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Greg and all, Exactly right regarding Corporations having a better financing to do lobbying collectively or independently. This is why I put together, along with others, INEGroup. We now have the financing to compete with the best of them from a $$ standpoint. Greg Skinner wrote: > David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in > > preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up > > everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get > > contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) > > But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better > chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and > the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While > there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the > corporations are often willing to put aside their differences, > particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them > financially. > > Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge > corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or > other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less > likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge > corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some > angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader > might be an example of a netizen's angel. > > I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that > describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying > afloat during the early 1980s. > > I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of > laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business. > > --gregbo Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in > preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up > everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get > contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the corporations are often willing to put aside their differences, particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them financially. Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader might be an example of a netizen's angel. I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying afloat during the early 1980s. I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Franky and all, Good argument! Unfortunately the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board and the GIP http://www.gip.org know this which is why they have continued to thwart any VOTING from taking place from the Stakeholders. Frank Rizzo wrote: > At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: > >Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you > > >here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business > > >purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by > > >high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't > > >have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. > > > >Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? > >After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just > >directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet > >policy if ICANN falls. > > > >I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would > >have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big > >business. > > If a public vote had the same outcome, I could live with it. I > believe in democracy. Though I highly doubt that a vote would come > out with the same cast of characters as ICANN is today. And if they > knew that they could be voted out in 12 months, they'd do a better > job of being accountable to ALL of their constituents, not just "the > coalition of trademark, regulatory and e-commerce interests behind > it". > > -riz Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Franky and all, Oh no we can't have any of that voting nonsense!!! (Sarcasm intended) Poor old Capt. Roberts would have a stroke! >;) And that would put a damper on his free skiing trips via ICANN. That would be a travisty wouldn't it? Frank Rizzo wrote: > At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: > >I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just > >can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat > >something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it > >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and > >we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We > >must make it work. > > Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you > here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business > purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by > high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't > have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. > > Let us vote!! > > -rizzz Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish. --gregbo] Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you >here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business >purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by >high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't >have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
I have no argument on this Let us VOTE and push them hard till we get the vote. Seems to me I remember something like a cry "no taxation with out representation" side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) dave At 12:01 PM -0700 9/10/99, Frank Rizzo wrote: >At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: >>I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just >>can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >>something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >>must make it work. > >Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you >here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business >purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by >high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't >have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. > >Let us vote!! > >-rizzz
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: >I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just >can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >must make it work. Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Let us vote!! -rizzz
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
>can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself How would we know? It's never been tried. The cabalesque dealings so far, hardly count. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
[IFWP] RE: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] concluded that: >...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those >interested in the continued operation of an Internet >whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and innovators. I don't share Mr. Cook's confidence in being able to predict the future. Even if ICANN disappears, the issues that led to its creation are still there, including - No competition in domain name registration. - Expensive and cumbersome mechanisms for resolving conflicts between trademark holders and domain name holders. - An unmet need of Internet users outside of the U.S. to help determine domain name issues. - No process for adding new top-level domains. If ICANN gets knocked off, something will rise to take its place. What will it be? Will it be better than ICANN or worse? Or if nothing fills the void, how will the issues be addressed? And if government(s) rose to fill this vacuum, would we end up satisfied with the outcome? Pete Farmer ___ Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications Strategies Unlimited http://www.strategies-u.com Mountain View, CA +1 650 941-3438 (voice) +1 650 464-1243 (mobile & voice mail) +1 650 941 5120 (fax)
