Eliott, You argue from the assumption that only those registrars who succeed commercially could have killed the bottom up process and the like. This simply does not follow. The fact that Verisign does not pull all the strings alone, does not prove that there is not a limited group that does.
You can, moreover, not dismiss those who claim that ICANN is not bottom up consensus by telling them that they have had their chance and lost. The idea was that this was going to be an ongoing proces... And if you really think the UDRP needs work, well push the review of it promised for end 2000 and still stalled. Oh, and cancel these domains, registered to Tucows: openroot.com openroot.net openroot.org Marc On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, at 17:29 [=GMT-0500], elliot noss wrote: > Patrick: > > I will try and be a bit more succinct here so that a couple people may > actually read the whole email. > > Patrick, I don't think openness equals agreeing with you. I think your > email proves MY point. You describe in great detail all the > opportunities you had for input. There is NO requirement that you get > your way or that people agree with you. With respect to alt root issues > I don't. > > Let's get to the meat of it. You say "Throughout all of this > participation, I watched a small group of insular, > manipulative, back-room players succeed in gaining and solidfying > control of what is arguably one of the most important resources on the > Internet..". I have heard this numerous times. I want to have this > point out here and now (and look forward to Jim Fleming taking my > comments out of context and forwarding them to the world ;-)). > > Who are the members of this group? Let's run through it. Is it > Verisign? Well they lost the monopoly and have gone from 100% market > share to about 17%. The future of their registrar business is in > question. Register.com has also been in the press quite a lot recently. > I can't imagine you are referring to them. Neulevel and GNR are not > exactly experiencing massive financial success nor could anyone accuse > them of being insiders. Afilias may now do well with PIR getting .org, > but even there the benefits are quite diffuse and the point of the > whole Afilias thing was to have it be open to ANY registrar. > > So let's look at who has benefitted. In my view there are a few smaller > players (of which Go Daddy and Enom are the largest) and us. Go Daddy > and Enom have succeeded, IMHO, because they offer dirt-cheap prices and > we have succeeded, IMHO, becuase we realized that webhosters, ISPs, et > al are the ones that actually sell domain names. I also believe that > all of these things have GREATLY BENEFITTED registrants who are WAY > better off then they were. Now let me go further. I believe Tucows has > been the single greatest beneficiary of this ICANN process. Not because > of back room manipulation but because with a more level playing field > doing the right thing pays off. > > So let me ask you point blank. Patrick, am I an "insular, manipulative, > back-room player"? Cause if I am, it aint all its cracked up to be! > > There is much I don't like. I want more tlds. I think the UDRP needs > work. The new CEO better make peace with ccTLDs and the RIRs. A > reformed ICANN needs to be better at enforcing the contracts. But boy > are things way better off then they were. And in three short years. > > Looks like I failed at being succinct! Thanks for letting me make this > point. > > Regards > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 04:54 PM, Patrick wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, elliot noss wrote: > > > >> TIME OUT****** > >> > >> Great discussion. I don't want to intrude. I just want to give you all > >> my position (which may or may not be the "official" Tucows position, > >> but is pretty close to it currently) on four things: > >> > >> - I believe in a single, authoritative root within which all tlds > >> exist > >> for the public good and that all registry operators are contractors > >> operating in that context (implicit here is a complete rejection of > >> first-come-first-served); > >> > >> - My personal experience has been that ICANN is open and transparent, > >> in fact it is by far the most transparent generalist organization I > >> have ever seen and I say this both as the CEO of a public company (in > >> a > >> world of Sorbannes-Oxley) and as someone who has been quite involved > >> in > >> ICANN since its inception. It has been my experience that people who > >> are not agreed with or not (in their view) adequately listened to tend > >> to then complain about openness and transparency. > > > > Elliot, > > > > I think that you'll find some of the loudest critics have likewise been > > involved in the process for quite some time and do not render their > > opinions without experience or merit. > > > > I followed the IAHC and it's aborted attempt to gain control of the > > root. > > I submitted comments to the Department of Commerce on the Green Paper. > > I > > participated in mailing list discussions. I attended numerous IFWP > > meetings around the globe at a significant cost in time and money to > > both > > myself and past employers, also serving as a steering committee member. > > I spoke to Ira Magaziner. I met with Esther Dyson. I was part of the > > Boston > > Working Group. I submitted comments to the D.O.C. on the White Paper. I > > authored a letter to Ralph Nader&James Love in response to Esther > > Dysons' > > response to questions posed by them which is recommended reading for at > > least three law courses that I'm aware of. I attended several ICANN > > meetings, > > including the one where new TLDs were decided on. > > > > I participated. > > > > Throughout all of this participation, I watched a small group of > > insular, > > manipulative, back-room players succeed in gaining and solidfying > > control of > > what is arguably one of the most important resources on the Internet > > using the very openness and input offered by those participating in > > good > > faith against them. This is no better exemplified by the fate of the > > only > > real attempt at global dialogue and development of consensus-based > > organizational documents, the IFWP. It was successfully tanked in > > large part > > due to the masterful efforts of Mike Roberts who in his capacity as an > > IFWP steering committee member voted to kill further drafting efforts, > > while > > failing to disclose that he had already been selected to run an ICANN > > based on a set of organizational documents already created by that > > same small > > group(hi Joe Sims and friends.) That should speak volumes about the > > character of the person chosen to head ICANN. > > > > Given sufficient interest, I could fill several pages detailing > > examples > > of such malfeasence, and that's just the stuff I know about. We could > > talk about how the board was selected, we could talk about how the > > organizational documents were developed and by whom, we could talk > > about > > the countless revisions to the by-laws made after ICANN gained D.O.C. > > approval, > > we could talk about the domain dispute policy, we could talk about the > > TLD > > selection process, we could talk about the board squatters, we could > > talk > > about the laughably named "Internet Consensus Policy" manifestos, we > > could > > talk about one of the few elected board members having to sue to gain > > access > > to basic corporate records, we could talk about the contract for > > running > > .com, we could talk about the killing of the General Assembly, we > > could talk > > about the reduction of publicly elected board members from nine to > > ZERO. The > > list goes on, and on, and on. > > > > For the sake of argument, lets assume for the moment that all of the > > issues mentioned above don't exist or that I'm just a lone malcontent. > > > > What then is the current relationship of this obstensibly open, > > transparent organization to it's subordinate organizations? > > > > Well, there's the continuing inability to secure contracts with the > > majority of ccTLDs who claim a lack of representation and appropriate > > consideration of their positions of all things, we have the RIRs > > issuing > > statements challenging ICANNs authority over them, and we have the > > IETF/IAB making "ICANN evolution recommendations" that if implemented > > would reduce control as well. > > > > It seems then that beyond us mere domain-registrant serfs, there are > > individuals and organizations under the ICANN umbrella itself that are > > pretty > > darn unhappy with how things are run. > > > > ICANN to its' credit has recognized this unhappiness and this paragon > > of > > openness and transparency has taken drastic action to address these > > concerns which to date has included killing the General Assembly, the > > only possible organized voice within ICANN for individuals, and of > > course > > completely eliminating publicly-elected directors. > > > > What input was the public afforded on the issue of eliminating elected > > directors? What input was the GA afforded in deciding if it wanted to > > be > > killed or not? The answer to this like so many other issues is: NONE. > > > > That's not the workings of an open, transparent organization. It's a > > farce. > > > >> They never say "not open compared to....". TO what? To > >> congress/parliament? > >> To the ITU? To the UN? To a public company? To a private company? > > > > Yes "they" have, but people continue to argue about the most > > applicable label. ICANN itself has significantly altered it's charter > > in an > > attempt to pass itself off as a "technical coordination body" vs. a > > governance organization which would be held to higher standards of > > openness, transparency, and representation. > > > > With respects to just domain names, ICANN is potentially empowered to > > determine wholesale cost(for any non-cctld,) the supply of names(what > > tlds), the terms under which I can register a name, and the terms under > > which it can be taken away. Also as a component of these terms ICANN > > decides what rights I have related to the privacy of my personal > > information. > > > > IP addresses are even more important. As the RIRs are subordinate to > > ICANN, ICANN theoretically has control over IP address pricing, terms, > > and > > allocations. This means they potentially control the ability of people > > to > > access the Internet at all. > > > > Making decisons about my rights and my privacy is not the hallmark of > > a "technical coordination body." By it's actions it is a > > governance/regulatory body, and should have a structure appropriate to > > such a > > role, except that ICANN decided to move even further away from that > > structure > > as part of it's (de)volution. But you know something? None of what I'm > > saying > > is new, or isn't something that has been pointed out repeatedly over > > the past > > several years by far more impressive and eloquent speakers than me. > > > >> Many people complain about the meetings being held in remote > >> locations and > >> refuse to see this as being global, but choose to instead infer this > >> is > >> about hiding from the public. I hope ALL of those folks (that means > >> you > >> Michael Froomkin) will be in Montreal in June for the first ICANN > >> meeting > >> ever on the East Coast of North America. There is no excuse for any > >> of the > >> shrill critics to not test openness (and please don't compare this to > >> the IETF process, which I respect and admire, but which is EXTREMELY > >> narrow in scope and subject matter. Try and "access" the IETF as a > >> non-geek); > > > > Dave Farber made an observation at one of the early IFWP meetings that > > proved to be prophetic: "This is all window dressing." It is truer > > today than ever. While there may indeed be value in some of the > > constituency meetings for members of those constituencies, no one > > otherwise needs to be excused from what is otherwise a complete > > charade. > > > > Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me ten or > > more > > times and I should consider professional help for terminal stupidity. > > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > \/\/\/\/\ > > Patrick Greenwell > > Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong > > answers > > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > \/\/\/\/ > > >
