In the Wired Article http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17742.html. Mike Roberts is quoted as stating that ICANN is "incredibly open for a non-profit organization." This is, in one sense, true. Indeed, the publishedminutes are pretty informative, as official minutes of most organizations go. This is why DNRC vigorously opposed the non-profit model without the insertion of mandatory safeguards. (Our comments filed in response to the Green Paper are at www.domain-name.org). It does, however, run completely contrary to ICANN's letter to NTIA in November, when ICANN acknowledged that it was not just any old nonprofit, but was entrusted with valuable public resources and would behave accordingly. Let me suggest one last counter example. Last week, the FCC held a meeting of the Commissioners at which the Section 706 Report was released. For those who do not follow Internet developments outside of domain names, Section 706 is the Section of the Telecom Act requiring the Commission to do a report on the deployment of "advanced telecommunications services" to the American people. I'm not here, however, to talk about the report. Those interested can find it at fcc.gov. I'm here to talk about the meeting. The meeting was held publicly. It was even webcast. The Commissioners got their say, and then they voted to adopt the report. This meeting, of course, was relatively pre-canned. No Commissioner was surprised by what any other Commissioner said. We missed the hours of log-rolling, the fights with Congressional staffers, etc. But we *did* get each Commissioner, on the record, saying where he or she stood on this issue. We know how they voted. We know what they felt was important enough to say publically. What troubles me about ICANN is that they are afraid to do even *this much.* They are afraid to have even the semblance of an open session, so that we can see where they stand. Mike Roberts comments, as quoted in Wired, unfortunately make it clear that he has not moved one iota from his opinion held since ICANN formed. The vast silent majority supports ICANN, and those who don't are mere "self-appointed critics" who should be dismissed. Meanwhile, the Board surrounds itself in the Forbidden City with supporters who assure it that its proclimations are wise and just. Well, whatever. I am rapidly moving to the views expressed by some (notably Telage at the Washington DNSO meeting and Dixon on this list) that ICANN will eventually start giving orders and find that, where the rubber meets the road, it is not obeyed. Harold
