> didn't get it their way and now they cry about that. That is not the
> point, the point is, that it is not an open process. This has been studied
> and documented by US professors of politics and law. So?
I've also observed that the professor that complains loudest about this
dynamic has spent more money on his blog than he has on studying and
documenting this problem. I used to be surprised that scholars could boldy
make claims of this nature while ignoring a similarly large body of facts
that did not coincide with their hypothesis and conclusion.William Rusher
once noted that for every single solid conclusion that the majority of
experts agreed upon, there would always be at least one expert that was
willing to risk his professional reputation to cling to a competiting
conclusion. I'm paraphrasing his remarks, but the fact remains that the
academics involved in the process can barely claim to have adhered to the
standards of their professions while pursuing these dogged claims.
Tom noted to me offline that perception is reality and that the perception
is that things are seriously fucked up. But lets take a look at why the
situation is a mess rather than just hanging it around the necks of the most
readily available patsy. Jumping to conclusions without an analysis of the
evidence is the easiest way to draw the wrong conclusion. Here's a great
example of the fallacies that people persist in pursuing...
1. Verisign games the transfers process.
2. It is a big problem.
3. The problem has persisted for a long time.
4. Therefore ICANN is doing nothing about it.
5. Therefore ICANN is in bed with Verisign.
The facts present a much different picture...
1. Verisign games the transfers process.
2. It is a big problem
3. The problem has persisted for a long time.
4. It has persisted for a long time because Verisign is arguably operating
in accordance with their contracts in playing these games.
5. Therefore it is difficult if not impossible to outright stop Verisign
from persisting with their games.
6. Therefore a change in policy is required to stop their behavior.
7. In ICANN's context this takes time but is currently underway.
The bad actor is almost inevitably Verisign each and every time. The
travesty is that the rhetoric that I see from people like Marc, Joe and
Patrick only serves to further Verisign's self-serving agenda. If even
one-tenth of the energy that the Persistent Critics invested in pursuing
objections to ICANN's legitimacy was instead used to pursue objections to
Verisign's tactics (and therefore presumably working to improve the
community lot), then important issues would tend to boil away much quicker
and the very dynamic that the Persistent Critics most like to point to would
disappear in a flash.
But then again, Wired tends to prefer soundbytes from 'industry watchdogs'
and not 'productive participants'.
Regards,
-rwr
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
