On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, at 06:31 [=GMT-0500], Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > 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.
This is too low for you, Ross, even if it were true. It is the mere rhetorics, of which you accuse others further down. Who exactly are you talking about? I really have no idea who you mean. > 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. Yeah, well, we all start looking at things from our own perspective (you mention it yourself) and then miss some details that do not fit in. It's the nature of knowledge. We cannot do otherwise. And the way to get further is to point out to the other the facts that don't fit in, not vague allegations and insinuations. So if you think the critics of ICANN are wrong, point out the facts they ignore, and tell how the picture should be according to you. > 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. I am not saying that experts are always right. I was just pointing out that the top-down processes of ICANN are not only noticed by losers, as you and Eliot seem to say. > 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. Yes, fine. I did not say the above. You do. This is not the way to show that those who think ICANN is moving in the wrong directions are wrong. Quote them, don't summarize in your own words what you think they _might_ be saying. That is too simple a tactic in a discussion. Anyway, I am not into Verisign bashing. I merely pointed out that the IDNs are a Verisign thing and not an ICANN thing. We are talking about ICANN. True is in any case, that ICANN, the regulator of the cartel, does nothing against those who abuse their position within this cartel. Fact is also that ICANN doesn't even acknowledge complaints, whether made in private or in public. And it doesn't look like they are acting upon the complaints either. Or do you think they do, but simply forgot to tell us? All this simply doesn't look like open, bottom up, transparent. It adds up to other things that make the legitimacy of ICANN more and more problematic, like the elimination of elected directors, abolishment of an independent review of Board decisions. > The bad actor is almost inevitably Verisign each and every time. The > travesty is that the rhetoric that I see from people like Marc, We all use rhetoric. Don't you? For the record, again: I was not talking about Verisign but about ICANN. I don't blame Verisign, I blame ICANN. > 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. Are you saying those who oppose ICANN's intransparency etc should use their energy to attack Verisign? I find that very, very weird. What is Verisign to us? It is a company that can do what it likes. And rightly so. ICANN, however, is managing a _public_ resource. It should be accountable to us. Verisign doesn't have to be, and better not be. What you say, Ross, is like telling someone who is robbed that he shouldn't complain about unsafety on the streets to the city politicians, but attack the robbers. Come on! > But then again, Wired tends to prefer soundbytes from 'industry watchdogs' > and not 'productive participants'. What interests me more, and I think is more relevant here, is what users and domain name registrants prefer.
