Jay,
In the past few months I've deliberately kept a low profile in the
discussions on the various lists, and I hesitated again before hitting the
"Reply" button. However, I feel your accusation is so grave that I have to
ask for more background (particularly since we've come to know each other
well enough since the early days of IFWP for me not to simply ignore your
comments).
At 10:40 04.06.99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>Esther Dyson, interim chairman of ICANN, member of the board of the
>Electronic Frontier Foundation, and member of the Council on Foreign
>Relations as well as many other organizations, has sold out the Internet
>Community in a big way.
>
>This "first lady" of Internet Governance *could* have gone down in history
>as the George Washington of our day -- instead, she'll be remembered as the
>leader that botched the ICANN experiment.
I really don't think that these historical comparisons will get us
anywhere. Anybody comparing ICANN with the American Revolution and the
Chair of the Board with George Washington is putting the thing on a level
where it doesn't belong.
>In the past, Esther has claimed to be fighting for sound and transparent
>processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive
>processes as prescribed in the White Paper.
>
>Well, I'm not buying it any longer. In decision after decision, she has
>voted with the rest of the ICANN Board to step on these ideals, and has
>pursued an agenda that can only be described in a most contrarian way.
>
>The recently concluded Berlin meeting was her defining moment. Instead of
>fighting to ensure a fair DNSO, she supported a gamed DNSO controlled by
>those friendly to the gTLD-MoU that preceded ICANN. Then, in the now
>familiar ICANN style, the ICANN Board gave this gamed DNSO their blessing
>to approve the WIPO report.
This statement bothers me in a number of ways:
First, I had the impression in Berlin - for the first time - that the Board
was presenting a common front and operating in masterly fashion. As you
know, I've been a consistent critic of the processes leading to the
selection of the current Board. Right up to this present moment, nobody has
been able to give me a convincing explanation why other people with
significantly more experience with regard to ICANN's responsibilities
weren't appointed to the Board. There are other reasons as well to
criticise the composition of the Board (as a representative of ISP
interests I have to reiterate that we're clearly underrepresented).
However - this is all ancient history now. The Board is up and running, and
we should judge it simply by how well it does its job. And although I was
critical at first, I've changed my opinion. For example, I thought
Kraaijenbrink's appearance at the ICANN open meeting in Singapore was very
good. He demonstrated that we aren't talking about people who are
incompetent or biased - he showed clearly that he has his own views and
isn't prepared to be pressed into serving any and every cause. I'm also
willing to assign much more credibility to those members of the Board I've
been dealing with lately than at the start. Esther Dyson, for example,
acted very diplomatically during the runup to the Berlin meeting. In my
view, she was particularly careful not to take sides prematurely (while I
might have wished I could have won her over more easily, others felt
exactly the same way).
The Berlin meeting itself went relatively smoothly, I felt. Whether you're
satisfied with the outcome or not, I don't think you can say that the Board
gave preferential treatment to anybody. Naturally, I know that reports on
meetings always reflect the speaker's own sense of achievement - but even
so, if there was one thing the Board did this time, it was to stand by its
proclaimed policies as far as reasonably possible. To this extent, I really
can't understand your complaint.
This brings me to the second point that bothers me somewhat. If I take your
claim seriously that DNSO is "controlled by those friendly to the
gTLD-MoU", then this applies to me as well, since I've been elected to the
provisional Names Council. However, I can't imagine where you get the idea
that I'm "friendly to the gTLD-MoU". Back in the IAHC days I was constantly
criticising the lack of inclusiveness in the process (which you can see for
yourself in numerous documents and minutes on equally numerous web sites).
Again, in Geneva when the gTLD-MoU was signed, I strongly expressed my
reservations about individual sections of the MoU and the way it was
launched (to the point that several of those present had little good to say
about me for some time afterwards). I was involved in IFWP, PRECISELY
BECAUSE I felt the gTLD-MoU process wasn't open enough. The only thing I've
tried to do is to be fair at all times and recognise good approaches where
I see them.
Even so, I can hardly be suspected of following some hidden agenda here.
And looking round at the provisional Names Council I see other people who
are above any suspicion (even if you regard POC members as devoid of all
integrity by definition, which I by no means agree with). This very
specifically applies to the representatives of the ISP constituency, who
currently make up 16% of the total Names Council membership. There are also
a number of prominent representatives of POC who aren't on the Names
Council, although they were angling for this during the runup to the Berlin
meeting. If the ICANN board was really as biased as you claim, it would -
for example - have been simple to approve the group around David Maher as
the non-commercial constituency. However, given the counterproposals by
Sondow and Mueller, Dyson & co haven't taken this easy way out.
So why are you heading for a confrontation at this time and on this massive
scale? Have I missed something I should know about?
Best regards,
Michael Schneider
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Schneider CEO, AboveNet Deutschland GmbH |
| Chairman, eco - Electronic Commerce Forum e.V. |
| President, European Internet Service Providers |
| Association |
| Member, provisional Names Council of ICANN |
| c/o Schneider & Schollmeyer Law Firm, Phone: +49 2242 9270-0 |
| Dickstrasse 35, D-53773 Hennef [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
