Declan McCullagh
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:45:04 -0700
Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03654.html
--- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end" In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Previous Politech message: > > "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'" > http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html > > Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel. I have heard that Sims has publicly called me an "idiot". So take the following as the blitherings of a fool: Sims likes to issue ex-cathedra bulls about how ICANN started and what ICANN is. I wonder whether ICANN paid for this one, and if so, how much? Sims' neo-papal-bulls are, however, merely works of fiction. One can't call them historical fiction because the links with reality are far too tenuous. I've been collecting Sims statements for years, and because I'm on the Board of Directors of ICANN I have had the opportunity to see how he purveys his ever-shifted message to those who could discharge him from his job. I am reminded less of Othello and more of Iago - with the Internet taking the role of Desdemona. ICANN was the creation of a septic conception. ICANN was constructed in secrecy. Favored groups, euphemistically and inaccurately called "stakeholders", were selected. Secret deals were made. Comments from the public were allowed - but they remained merely comments and they were completely ignored - setting the precedent for the submit-into-the-dumpster kind of public "forum" process that remains standard practice in the ICANN of today. How do I know this? Jon Postel asked Sims to speak to me. When Sims finally did, he informed me that virtually every important decision had been made and that changes were impossible because it would require too many changes to the deals that had already been made. What those deals were, and with whom, and with what quid-pro-quos, is something that has never been revealed, although a few outlines have been seen. ICANN loves to wave the word "consensus" - but it is consensus among a chosen few. The ICANN of today routinely ignores even those "consensus" mechanisms that it does have - look at how ICANN ignored the recommendations of its DNSO regarding .org. And all this noise about elections being so difficult: ICANN's protestations are simply a translucent excuse to avoid having the public elect board members. ICANN loves to point at this or that report that casts doubt on certain types of purely electronic voter registration and election systems. Yet many of us vote in electronic shareholder elections all the time - the technology is inexpensive and proven. Imagine if the US had reacted to the troubles with its last presidential elections in the way that ICANN has: The US would have abolished congressional and senatorial elections and replaced them with a system in which the Congress and Senate would have been filled by people chosen by the President's cabinet. And all this noise about governments representing their citizens - yes, governments do. Governments also represent the businesses and intellectual property owners within their borders. Thus if one accepts the belief that one can dispense with public voting in ICANN, then one must equally accept the belief that one can dispense with business and intellectual property owner voting in ICANN. Sims, as usual, waives the blody flag of "stable operation" of the Internet. Few have bothered to define "stable operation" of the Internet. I define it as packets quickly and reliably moving from IP address to IP address and as DNS names resolving quickly and accurately. Under that definition there is precious little that ICANN has done over its lifetime has had anything to do with "stable operation" of the Internet. Instead ICANN has spent virtually all of its time and energy creating things that have nothing to do with technical stability of the internet - things like a new international law of trademark (the UDRP), things like the grant of .com to Verisign in perpetuity (you get one guess who brewed up that that little gem) and with highly intrusive and regulatory regimes that condition the grant of new top level domains. Even ICANN's "big names" committees - like that of security - have done nothing. (In the meantime, ICANN repeatedly rejects practical and potentially extremely valuable approaches.) There is some validity to the argument that ICANN has a responsibility to protect those who were locked into the pre-existing top level domains, such as .com, .net, and .org. And that justifies ICANN's things like ICANN's forthcoming decision on a new operator of .org. But the new TLDs have no pre-exisiting customers who need to be protected. The people buying names there have full freedom of choice. And there has been no public debate, and certainly no public "consensus", on whether ICANN should be a consumer protection body. It would be ironic, given ICANN's repudiation of the internet community's role within ICANN, for ICANN to consider itself a consumer protection body. --karl-- --- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:48:28 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Geist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end" Declan, Since it's not everyday I get described as "all wrong", "profound lack of understanding", "laughably naive", and "longing for a utopian construct" in a single posting -- it usually takes at least a couple of days to earn those accolades -- I hope you'll permit a brief response to Joe Sims that hits on three points. First, Joe at least validates my point in the column that ICANN mistakenly seeks to characterize its critics as insisting that the issue is all about global online elections. My column specifically argues that this is not what this debate is about and even goes so far as to suggest that elections do not necessarily ensure adequate representation, balance, and accountability. Far from a "religious approach" with not alternative solution, I think that elections are the most obvious method of working toward fair representation, accountability, and transparency, but not necessarily the sole method of achieving those goals. Second, Joe argues that groups such as the "ccTLDs must be persuaded to come to the ICANN table and that it will not help that process to make ICANN less stable, less predictable organization." I think Joe and (perhaps ICANN by extension) make a serious mistake in thinking that transparency, representation, and accountability somehow undermines ICANN's ability to bring ccTLDs on board. Last year I was elected to the board of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the dot-ca, in a public online election. CIRA just completed its second online election yesterday and the results will be announced next week. I believe that this illustrates that online elections are hardly the bleeding edge of innovation that Joe claims. The unpredictability that elections create has nothing to do with new technologies -- rather, it is the unpredictability of who will actually be elected, which I suspect, is one the major concerns of those who currently run ICANN since vocal directors such as Karl Auerbach and Andy Mueller-Maguh were not exactly their first choices two years ago. Moreover, my position (and I speak only for myself and not other directors nor the organization) in the most recent CIRA election was that CIRA should not enter into any agreement with ICANN unless it can be satisfied that ICANN has addressed the fairness and accountability issues with all of its constituent groups, including Internet users. The reasoning is simple -- if users can be so easily dismissed, what is to stop ICANN from doing the same to the ccTLD community once they have them signed, sealed, and delivered. Transparency, accountability, and fair representation are issues that matter to all stakeholders, particularly those that ICANN admits that it must persuade to come to the table. Finally, while Joe says that I long for a utopian construct, the last time I checked: - Senator Conrad Burns was saying that legislation might be needed because ICANN does not operate in an open fashion and is unaccountable to Internet users; - the GAO was concluding that ICANN has made little progress in ensuring representation of the Internet community and using private, bottom-up coordination; - ICANN was embroiled in a lawsuit for failing to provide a director with access to its records as required by state law; - the EU was recommending total governmental consultation on all policy issues (some partnership that); and - the United Nations was wondering aloud about involving international governmental organizations in the domain name governance process. Despite that environment, Joe says that ICANN is on the path to success. Now which one of us is really laughably naive and longing for utopian construct? MG -- ********************************************************************** Professor Michael A. Geist University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur St., P.O. Box 450, Stn. A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319 Fax: 613-562-5124 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.lawbytes.ca --- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:42:16 -0700 From: lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end" Declan McCullagh wrote: >Previous Politech message: >"Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'" >http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html >Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel. >-Declan >--- >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Michael Geist's column >From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400 >Of course, Geist has it all wrong. I hope you will consider publishing >this response. >The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the answer >to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of >understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does it. I find this statement more than marginally amusing; it amounts to, in effect, "Those who like sausage or internet policy should not watch either being made." The implication is that the lumpen proletariat is too stupid to understand the reasoning behind various ICANN decisions, thus, these decisions must be made in darkened rooms under the cloak of shadow, lest the ignorant fools who are governed not comprehend the necessity of large suitcases of unmarked bills being handed around or precisely why the heads of major corporations get to dicate policy directly. I propose, as always, that the market will find a solution; remove any pretense of there being a central governing authority to the internet, and let everyone work it out for themselves. --- Subject: Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end" Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:07:39 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Joe wrote: >The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the answer >to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of >understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does >it. Would it harm ICANN in any way to do *everything* in public, to be completely transparent, to hold meetings in public places; to webcast them; to post meeting agendas, minutes and other business documents online? I don't see how. >It is true that its original structure >called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large membership >of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the Internet >community at that time. What was the consensus view at the time? How do you know this? Who did you ask? (Note: The CEO of AOL/TW and four US senators does not represent the consensus view of the Internet community.) >We know >that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who insist on >direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other >alternative way of representing the public interest; Most corporations allow their shareholders to elect directors; co-operatives allow their members to elect directors; democracies allow their citizens to elect leaders; yet somehow, you say, this won't work for ICANN. >The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the failure >to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive. Governments are >properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly critical >to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and because >what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable operation >of the Internet. Perhaps they're interested in it for *both* reasons. >This longing for some >utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a body that >does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the entire >Internet provider and user community. Neither will running around behind closed doors and pretending you know what's right for everyone. >The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains >information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client >or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is >intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not >an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying >to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, >distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is >not authorized and may be unlawful. Yes, that's why you sent it out to several thousand people. Do you have any idea how silly email messages with disclaimers look? Paul --- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:41:34 -0400 From: Nick Bretagna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation'send" References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <snip> It is true that its original structure called for half its Board > to be selected by a general At Large membership of some kind, but that > was certainly not the consensus view of the Internet community at that time. I don't recall a single article naysaying this position at the time which did not come from someone with a blatantly vested interest in some "other" solution. Defend this statement. A few dozen URLs to articles and columns should abound if it were true (with appropriately knowledgeable and at least moderately unbiased sources). It isn't, since I can readily recall the time, and there were few, if any, of significance in the technical community naysaying it. > Prof. Geist, having not been part of the discussions with the US > Government that produced that construction, Ah, so ICANN is a government-body already? >is undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that decision, >and I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was >convinced that such an approach was really workable. Well, the fact that many in the government of the US does not believe in the reliability of elected representatives does not seem particularly amazing to me. I wonder why? >The ICANN organizers wanted to insert the words "if feasible;" the US >Government position at the time, for reasons I leave to the reader to >imagine, was "we'll figure out how to do it later." The then brand-new >Board of ICANN, without the assistence of Jon Postel who had died a month >earlier, acquiesced to this position, notwithstanding a quite clear >concern that it might not be possible to make it work. In hindsight, I am >quite sure most regret this decision. Yes, you've worked so hard at it. >We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the concepts on >which the original construction rested, "testing" requires that they be put into effect and flaws found. Since you've never even produced a full board as it was described (even though you clearly can do that much) I don't see how your statements demonstrate anything other than obfuscatory rhetoric. The statements certainly have nothing to do with truth or veracity. >and we actually know some things that we did not know then. >We know that the notion of global on-line elections is fraught with >problems that are too complicated for ICANN to be on the bleeding edge on >innovation in this area. Gimme a BREAK. This thing isn't some day to day vote-your-mind-of-the-moment problem -- it's a means to a consensus of those who have internet access, and it doesn't need day-to-day operational reliability. This is just not that tough. And if the current board ICANN can't do it, who the hell can? You people are supposedly all individuals at the cutting edge of technology and its interface with other professions -- if you AREN'T, then get the bloody hell off the board and put someone onto it who is! Hacks! >We know that there is no >consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest should >be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence of >those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution. No, he didn't say that there was only "one possible solution" -- he said that there was one solution which was defined to be the one to be used -- which you people have done nothing but obfuscate and dodge since the inception occurred. Someone should sue your useless asses off the board for outright breach of contract. You not only haven't done that which you were supposed to do (a clearly defined set of activities), you haven't even tried very hard. You think it can't be done? Then QUIT and let someoneelse do it. Your massive contributions will be gratefully acknowledged at your farewell luncheon, I'm sure. >We know that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who >insist on direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any >other alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious >approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus. THAT's WHAT THE CHARTER DEFINES you nit!!! What set of halfwit BAR members let you become an attorney? God *FORBID* anyone should actually expect you/the board to do what you were contracted to do... I repeat: You think it can't be done? Then QUIT and let someone else do it. >We also know that a purely private organization, without the support and >involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able to >carry out this mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission >requires the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure >providers). ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive >power. It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the community >voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed. To >date, that has not happened. Why should anyone feel any reason to follow you if you don't even do what you promised to do in the first place, you bleeding idiot? You don't represent those who you were defined by contract to represent -- you represent a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats and organizations. It's amazing, actually, that you actually have the stupidity to claim this, considering the tremendous amount of "agreement and participation" your predecessor organizations managed to obtain despite not having any soldiers, either. It pretty well shows exactly what a "voluntary standards organization" can expect when it doesn't represent those it is supposed to. "Gawrsh, Wilbur! It don't work!" DUH. >We can argue all we want about why it has not happened, No, it's bloody damned obvious what has not happened -- any true effort at an election process, and an usurpment of power by the unelected portions of the board in the wake of that. No argument is required. All four of your halfwit grandparents could see what the reason is! >but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold on-line elections. Yes, everyone involved is happy with that fact. The fact that the existing unelected board has blatantly tried to eliminate the existence of the elected portion without any effort to produce the elected portion, which was part of its charter in the first place -- No, that could not possibly have anything to do with an unwillingness to comply with whatever ICANN's fiats may be. A total lack of legitimacy -- that certainly has nothing to to with the lack of compliance and assistance. Nahhhhh... None whatsoever. >The fact is that the root server operators, the address registries, and >the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to the ICANN table, and it >will not help that process to make ICANN a less stable, less predictable >organization. Oh, I see -- so, actually providing it with the very thing which was the entire reason for its existence would not possibly have anything to do with the reluctance to deal with what is, clearly, an utterly illegitimately acting body in clear violation of its charter. Nah. Can't be that. No way. By the way -- as an aside -- do you know of any investments in land? How about any Spanish Prisoners I might help out? Money trapped in Nigerian bank accounts I can help someone free up? Afghani Gold, even? I'm looking for ways to invest my entire life savings, and I trust you utterly to guide me in this regards, and I can see that you clearly have your finger on the pulse of honest dealings, and the fact that I'm believing the things you say make it clear I am exactly the sort of person you would want to deal with..... >Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the path >to ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the >private sector and global governments working together within an ICANN >structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective >decisions in a timely way. We are clearly on the path to such an ICANN, Having made certain that the one system based on the working historical model couldn't ever come into existence, and used that prevention as an excuse to impose radical changes on a community that does not want or need them.... >and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting in >Bucharest later this month. I hope that Bin Laden decides to make an example of you. I doubt it will happen, but if it does, I will personally cackle with glee, you arrogant thieves. >The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the failure >to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive. No, the government interest is a result of the failure of people to abide by ICANN's illegitimate decisions. It is THAT failure which is a direct result of the lack of global elections. Ya gotta order these things correctly if you want to see the flow, don'cha know? > Governments are properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is > increasingly critical to the well-being, social and commercial, of their > citizens, and because what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the > continued stable operation of the Internet. ICANN's functions are a potential path to power for bureaucrats and charlatans of all kinds. That there are many of those in government was never in doubt. >This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's >directors were elected by the general public. Yes, but it would be much, much tougher for them to justify intervention if ICANN was getting the assistance and compliance of people who gave its predecessors their assistance and compliance, wouldn't it...? And if you claim that lack of compliance comes from anything except the self-evident fact that the existing board is an illegitimate collection of power thieves, I'll call you, right now, a lying sack of fecal matter. You know better. I know better, and so does anyone else who knows how the net operates, to wit: They do not hesitate to assist and comply with people of legitimate authority -- it is only those who lack authority but claim it despite such lack who find themselves needing of soldiers and guns to enforce compliance with their fiat commands. This above has plenty of historical prescedent where the net is concerned. > >And it is this fact that is driving the process of gaining the proper >level of government participation in ICANN, nothing else. Yes, the utter and complete illegitimacy of the current board is certainly at the very heart of the entire matter. I fully concur. It is entirely why you have to seek the assistance of guns and soldiers to enforce your utterly illegitimate commands. Yep. >This is the real world; One where thieves and politicians decide how things should be, using government thugs to back up their commands. >Prof. Geist insists on occupying some academic construct of a world. The one which is the internet, you mean? Constructed mostly by those same academics and idealists of which you so sneeringly and condescendingly refer? Sorry, you're confusing the techs who created the net with the liberals and twits in university think tanks, poly-sci departments, and business schools. The people who created the net? THEY live in the real world, and create REAL things. Such fact self-evident by the existence of the net itself, which certainly has threatened a large part of the existing power structure. >This longing for some utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform >ICANN into a body that does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and >concerns of The thieving pricks and political hacks attempting to usurp power from those who legitimately possess it, >the entire Internet provider and user community. You inadvertently (no doubt) dropped a clause, there. I added it back for you. :-) Are you under the impression that those people who operate these things are going to comply with your fiat demands because you have a government behind you? No, they'll just quit -- and then you'll have a situation like you do in South Africa, where incompetent idiots are in charge of the situation, and nothing is getting done right. If South Africa were more significant, there'd be a major problem -- but only South Africans give a damned about how messed up their web is. In other words, your top-down imposition of power isn't going to work. Most of the people who run the systems will not comply, and the people you can get to take their places aren't going to know what the hell they are doing... the system will then fail, probably catastrophically, because you will have necessarily installed too many of half-wits to run things they don't understand. In other words, your vector is a dangerously presumptive one. Like I've said, if you think those elections can't be made to work, then fine, the solution is obvious -- QUIT. Go get yourself a real job that you're actually qualified for -- and get out of the way so someone who does know what they are doing from a technical standpoint can do the job. Have a nice day. >:-/ -- ------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- Nicholas Bretagna II mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------