Mike and all,
Well Mike if as you say or I read you correctly in this proposed
Democracy of the Internet, you contend that, " The ICANN Board's
duty is to HEAR everyone who wishes to be heard and then to DECIDE."
According to the White Paper it is NOT the job or intent in the MoU
for the ICANN BOARD TO DECIDE, rather for the MEMBERSHIP
to do so. And this seems to be where the major area of disagreement
from many seems to find itself. Collective dictatorships, in a situation
such as this are not in the best interests of the STAKEHOLDERS
as a whole, but favor only a selected few. As Lincoln put it, a divided
house cannot stand.
Mike Roberts wrote:
> Steve - a couple of comments on this post.
>
> - with respect to my responsibilities at Educom, I was Vice President
> for Networking and Director of the Educom Networking Task Force.
> In the former capacity, I acted as staff to the President and the
> Board and followed policy guidelines, especially dealing with
> advocacy on behalf of university networking interests, established
> by the Board. As Director of the Networking Task Force, which
> functioned in effect as a committee of Educom in the networking
> area, I arranged conferences, seminars, wrote papers etc all of
> which in one way or another were designed to advance the cause
> of networking for research and education. The major difference
> between my responsibilities then and my responsibilities now
> is that at Educom I had explicit marching orders to pursue
> advocacy on behalf of the Board and the members of Educom.
> My job at ICANN is to be the interim CEO who gets the company
> functioning in all its working aspects, under direction
> from the Board. I am not an advocate, and I am specifically
> not the author of any policies other than those adopted by
> the Board. If you see evidence to the contrary, please call
> me on it.
>
> With respect to the rest of the email, you present a compelling
> case for your vision of the future of the Internet name and
> address system. However, it is your case and your opinion,
> to which you are richly entitled in our democracy. Others
> may have other views and reach other conclusions. It seems
> to me to be unreasonable for you to conclude, with a lot of
> value laden adjectives, that those who may disagree with you
> are less worthy of having their opinions heard in the councils
> and public processes of ICANN. Gordon and others have been
> critical of the SJ Mercury article quotation in which I said
> that critics of ICANN needed to distinguish between being heard
> and having their way. This is the essence of the kind of
> republican democracy we have in the United States. It's going
> on right now in the Senate. The House Republicans have been
> heard, and their assertions are being weighed and measured
> by the Senate and a vote will follow. The ICANN Board's duty
> is to HEAR everyone who wishes to be heard and then to DECIDE.
> Those who are "affected" and aggrieved by Board decisions not
> only have our reconsideration policy as a remedy [see post of
> draft policy from yesterday on our Web site], they obviously
> have recourse to the courts, which we are frequently reminded of,
> most recently this morning.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Mike
>
> > 2/9/99
> >
> > TO: Mike Roberts, President & CEO, ICANN
> > CC: Esther Dyson, Chair, and Interim Board Members
> >
> > FROM: Steve Page, Internet .A-.Z Name Registry, T: 925-454-8624
> >
> > RE: ICANN's Defective Competition guidelines, etc (was Accreditation
> > guidelines, etc.)
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> > Thank you for your response to me emails. I do understand the
> > differences of Board policy-making and the executive follow-through, to
> > which your first comment below is made, however deferring policy-making to
> > "the Board" and merely "following orders" to the CEO and staff seems a bit
> > disingenuous. That actual "actor" in the process of *leading*, both the
> > policy-making and the implementation of policies...is the President/CEO.
> > If we use the Educom/Educause example, based upon the articles which I have
> > read, your are the person around whom the entire process began and
> > revolved, so although policy-making was done by a Board, it was *lead* by
> > you. Is this a wrong parallel to use, or does this model apply to ICANN as
> > well?
> > Having been an active member of "the community" for a number of
> > years, actively building a California-based business to bring something new
> > and innovative to the hopefully-soon-to-be "competitive" DNS. During this
> > period, I have spent hundreds and thousands of hours in the attempt to
> > build the sort of value which creates choices for people.
> > The choices, represented by the SLD.TLD character strings linked to
> > the single-character TLD set, are choices which never existed before I
> > began innovating, and choices which will not exist if individuals are
> > systematically and institutionally allowed to be continually stifled by the
> > Anti-Competitive Tendencies of a structurally-defective, monolithic,
> > economic value-chain called the ICANN.
> > It is clear that ICANN is being used as a tool of embarrassed
> > government officials to morph "the monopoly formerly known as NSI" into a
> > system somewhat resembling a competitive system (maybe to the untrained or
> > unconcerned observer), but the new system which is apparently being
> > structure to be a "competitive system" (not true), is really an economic
> > monopoly, by another name, under a grand charade and guided by an
> > unidentified force within the U.S. Government.
> > I won't go as far as to say that the selling-out of face-to-face
> > time with the President in exchange for funds paid by foreign governments
> > and influence peddlers has co-opted the ICANN process, but it is not too
> > far of a stretch to imagine that this could be one of the forces
> > influencing the process. I also won't go as far as to suggest that the
> > Monica Lewinsky distraction is a part of a bigger charade...to distract the
> > Congress which would otherwise be forced by historical precedent (the
> > creation of a standard currency under the Federal Reserve Act) to involve
> > itself in the creation of a standardized system for managing and
> > influencing a scarce economic resource (IP numbers) and an intellectual
> > resource (human language in the form of domain names). I'll leave that to
> > everyone else's judgement. ICANN is just doing its job. Right?
> > You wrote, below, "The accreditation guidelines assume the economic
> > structure for registries, registry-administrators and registrars that is
> > set out in the White Paper. That's the history and the
> > >mandate we are working from."
> > Unfortunately, somebody somewhere in the process seems to have
> > skipped the most important step in the entire episode Mike...and that step
> > is called "Competition", which is the entire purpose of this entire
> > multi-year process. There will be *no competition*, (by anyone's
> > definition and I encourage anyone to define the lottery process as
> > competition) after the results of the accreditation and Lottery process are
> > talied. Every participant, as it is structured now, will be re-selling one
> > product, a .COM, .NET, or .ORG domain name address, and they will be doing
> > so under the prodding of the U.S. government, which it is no stretch to
> > analogously compare to the central-controlling authority of scarce
> > agricultural or consumer products in any former communist/socialist
> > countries.
> > The sad irony of this affair is the inability of the leaders to
> > recognize the historical mistakes which tortured a generation of humanity
> > is being recreated on a much more pervasive scale. The Accreditation
> > Guidelines are one more step forward (another brick in the Berlin Wall?) in
> > the creation of an economic monolith which will be controlled by a system,
> > ICANN, which has no foundation of principled protections as its foundation.
> > You also wrote: "None of the other members on this board
> > participated actively in the White Paper process and each of the members
> > has an open mind about improvements." Where are the disclosures, as Esther
> > Dyson has put forth, regarding each and every Board member? I would like to
> > have the opportunity to recognize whether there might be conflicts of
> > interest or influential forces which will prevent their open minds from
> > taking action to eliminate the Anti-Competitive Reality of
> > institutionalizing only one monolithic economic system. If you could
> > implement this, under the spirit of openness and transparency, it might be
> > an incremental step toward 1) creating trust, and 2) building an ICANN
> > which is strong and stable enough to allow for a variety of economic
> > models.
> > You also wrote, "But the U.S. Government has set a number of fixed
> > points in its agreements with Network Solutions that constrain, at least in
> > the short term, how everyone is going to open .com etc to competition."
> > Opening .com to "competition" does not create "competition, it
> > merely creates a sharing of revenue among a registry and its resellers.
> > Your use of the term "competition" is false. Your are creating a global,
> > octopus-like electronic distribution network of "supplier-resellers"
> > relationships, and each relationship is designed to throw off a portion of
> > cash to NSI, and indirectly to ICANN. That's one fine model to have if
> > every person in the world wants to kneel in the temple of ICANN and pay
> > alms to the latest re-incarnation of a supra-national body designed to
> > extort value from the masses, but that is not "competition".
> > The term competition implies the invisible word...economic, which
> > further implies having a choice of products. Like the bare storefronts of
> > pre-peristroika Moscow, or the facade-like storefronts of the former walled
> > East Berlin, they were all resellers of an innovation-free marketplace
> > which had set-up pre-arranged relationships between supplier (the State)
> > and the retailer (the Storeowner), which were merely distribution-points
> > for the centrally-planned centrally-produced, centrally-controlled
> > economies. How is ICANN's model any different? Neither was/is
> > competitive.
> > In closing you wrote, "There may well be opportunities for more
> > diverse economic models of registry-registrar services, and if you wish to
> > present one to the Board, please do so."
> > Thank you for making the point so clearly how dangerous the
> > situation really is. ICANN is the only corporation being gifted with the
> > right to control scarce resources in Internet space (there won't be any
> > others, there's only one chance). The dangerous word you used is "may",
> > which also implies that there "may not" be the opportunity for more diverse
> > economic models of service. If there is not specific language used by
> > ICANN to protect the rights of individuals and entrepreneurs to provide
> > alternative models of service, then ICANN IS the reincarnation of Ronald
> > Reagan's "Evil Empire".
> > The stifling actions and implied future capability of someone or
> > something to control the rights of others to create services which might be
> > more innovative, cheaper, or better, again, is the definition of
> > Anti-Competitive, because ICANN is "the real thing" (as has been explained
> > to me by people familiar with the issues involving the damage caused by
> > monopolistic and Anti-Competitive behavior).
> > Please respond with as much detail as you can.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Stephen J. Page
> > Internet.A-.Z Name Registry
> > T: 925-454-8624
> >
> > (c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
> >
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> > >> ICANN, not the Paris meeting, implies otherwise. DNSO will become
> > >> a part of ICANN. Unless the DNSO structures something proactively, up
> > >> front, then control and exclusion will happen, I think, especially based
> > >> upon the comments of Mike Roberts. I'm waiting for more details...to see
> > >> how consistent his policies will be with his attitude..
> > >
> > >Steve - Just a couple of quick comments.
> > >
> > >- the Board sets policy, the CEO and staff carry it out. That's the
> > >basis on which I was hired, and that's how it's working.
> > >
> > >- the Board hasn't set policy on DNSO, it asked the community
> > >to submit proposals, which it is now seeing for the first time
> > >in the last couple of days. It wants to see reaction from the
> > >community, pro and con, on the proposals, so get in there with
> > >your suggestions.
> > >
> > >- the accreditation guidelines assume the economic structure
> > >for registries, registry-administrators and registrars that
> > >is set out in the White Paper. That's the history and the
> > >mandate we are working from. None of the other members
> > > on this board participated
> > >actively in the White Paper process and each of the members
> > >has an open mind about improvements. But the U.S. Government
> > >has set a number of fixed points in its agreements with
> > >Network Solutions that constrain, at least in the short
> > >term, how everyone is going to open .com etc to competition.
> > >There may well be opportunities for more diverse economic
> > >models of registry-registrar services, and if you wish to present one
> > >to the Board, please do so.
> > >
> > >- Mike Roberts
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
