Diane Cabell a �crit:
> All three of these statements are incorrect.
> Again, I call attention to the reports submitted to ICANN in Singapore,
> and caution against drawing incorrect conclusions from the abbreviated
> notes of the teleconference call.
Singapore was two months ago. The March 18th report is the current
one.
> At
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/macsing.html there are links to the
> complete MAC consensus points where one will find the details of the
> recommendations.
The only official statements are those that appear on the ICANN
website, not those on the Berkman site. The Berkman site is for the
in-group; the ICANN site is what is being read around the world.
> Actually, there isn't much support on the MAC for true sunset provisions,
> and we've decided to propose a monitor and review procedure instead.
If any such procedure is instituted, it's limits should be spelled
out in the bylaws. Anything that touches on the question of
membership, which was THE bone of contention between the community
and the IANA/ICANN, must be handled very carefully and done
completely in the open. There is no trust. How could there be, when
the original bylaws had no membership?
> True
> sunsets have a benefit as well as a risk. They disconnect the vested
> interests that have taken over and abused their power.
They can just as easily be used to disconnect the popular community
interests. Where will it be spelled out that the bylaws about
membership can only be changed to disenfranchise vested interests?
> So if the
> membership gets captured by special interests, the sunset provision would
> kill it at a pre-arranged time.
Or kill the opposition, so the vested interest had it all their way.
> If the system is working well, then it
> can be renewed.
Or else, once the vested interests have gotten their way, they can
be immured in power, just as the Postel/Sims board has been immured
in power by the NTIA.
> It's a two-edged sword, but the Board already has the
> power to make the revisions that concern you, so this neither adds nor
> subtracts from that.
Yes, the situation is already frought with dangers. Let's not make
it any worse.
> Well, sir, the MAC is trying to set up a membership structure that will
> allow you to elect replacements as soon as possible.
If I had wanted to replace them at all costs, I would have filed
charges against them in federal court long ago. I fear what will
take their place, and especially under the wrong conditions. I am in
no particular hurry to see them go; only to oblige them to act
correctly, which they don't always do. Since Congressional oversight
was passed from Science to Commerce, and Commerce is too busy with
other things to pay attention to the Internet, where can we go for
redress? How many brave people have left this process in disgust,
and now hope only that it implodes?
There are good people on this interim board. But, because they
weren't elected and aren't representative of the Internet community,
they are prone to be manipulated. They want to get back to their
personal lives and work, and people who hanker after that are not to
be trusted. They do things knowing they won't be the ones to suffer
the consequences.
Look at the contract for registering a domain name that's written
into the Registrar Accreditation Policy. Would anyone have put that
in who had to be responsible for the consequences, the augmentation
of reverse-hijacking it will cause, the fear of new investment in
websites it will engender? Look at who now has the power in the
DNSO, in its constituencies: trademark and business groups who
weren't involved in this process until a couple of months ago, and
who probably, most of them, don't know anything about the Internet
and didn't use it until recently. Are these events the work of
people who can be trusted to act in a way that will allow them to
live with their consciences two, three, ten years from now? or the
work of people who are going back home in six months?
>
> Diane Cabell
> MAC
