FYI:
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:59:03 -0400
>From: Don Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Computergram INTERNET Jun 14, 1999
>Comments: To: Simon Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Comments: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ISOC Members Discussion
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chapters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Simon
>
>Remember Watergate? "Follow the money?"
>
> From the beginning, NSI has done everything they can to cause delay
>in any process that could affect their monopoly position. While I
>don't have specific details, I believe a good investigative reporter
>would easily learn that NSI has covertly supported all of those
>individuals who have shown themselves to be conspiracy theorists,
>or just plain email-list games-people who do nothing constructive,
>but spend hours being against whatever the majority is for. The
>reason is simply that the more confusion, fear, uncertainty, and
>doubt they can inject, the more likely it is that any process for
>Internet self-governance, will be delayed. Self-governance of the
>Internet is something NSI fears may interfere with their monopoly.
>
>They are eminently successful in their efforts.
>
>When, three years ago, the IAHC was formed, it was done so in the
>manner that Internet activities (standards, policy, best practices,
>etc.) had always been done. The IAHC had representatives from all
>over the world; they were for the most part selected via a process
>that helped to assure impartiality; and, indeed, the Chair of the
>US government's Federal Networking Council (FNC) was a member of
>the IAHC. We did everything we should have done to keep the US
>government in the loop and a part of this attempt at self-governance.
>And they were involved and supportive.
>
>However, once NSI saw that we would succeed, they used their covert
>methods, spread confusion and misinformation to key government
>officials, including the US Congress, and got the US government
>involved in a more formal way. The result was the "Green Paper,"
>the "White Paper," Congressional hearings, and about 2 years of
>delay - with NSI greatly strengthening their monopoly position
>due to the explosive growth of the Internet. Of course, the US
>government's intent was pure in _their_ activities.
>
>If there is any question about who is succeeding, take a look at the
>valuation of NSI in 1996 and today!
>
>ICANN is a real test of our, that is the Internet community in
>general, ability to actually effect self-governance, or self-
>regulation. If we, together, can create an effective self-
>regulating organization for this relatively well-defined portion
>of Internet administration, it will portend well for the development
>of future self-governance initiatives. If we fail in this relatively
>simple attempt - simple at least as compared to such things as
>regulation of content - then the likelihood of our being able to
>ever achieve the critical requirement for keeping the Internet an
>independent, universal, and global means of communication, will be
>dealt a severe blow.
>
>NSI sees ICANN as an entity that can meddle in their monopoly, a
>privileged position that they are severely abusing, and they are
>doing the same thing that have given them success in the past.
>They are using the loners, they are paying "consultants" to
>attend meetings and spread confusion, uncertainty, and doubt (all
>unfounded), and they are winning. The result would preserve their
>monopoly - for awhile - but help destroy the Internet as we
>know it, and remember, as it has come to flourish.
>
>I don't agree with any closed meetings by the DNSO Names Council
>and I believe Michael Sondow, NSI's minions and anyone else who
>wants to participate, should be able to do so. However, I think
>people should be aware that not everyone has pure motives.
>Unfortunately, that's the way democracy works. We all have to
>learn to live with it. At the same time, it is important to
>keep a perspective of who the participants are and what they
>are trying to do. The article, excerpted below from COMPUTERGRAM
>INTERNATIONAL: JUNE 14 1999, is a great example of a "win" by NSI!
>But will anyone really win?
>
>ICANN must succeed. NSI believes that for NSI to win, ICANN
>must fail. This zero-sum game they are playing is a short-sighted
>gambit.
>
>Don Heath
>President/CEO
>Internet Society
>
>At 11:35 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Simon Austin wrote:
>>+ Self Appointed Names Council Throws NSI, ICIIU Off Meeting
>>
>>By Rachel Chalmers
>>
>>To Network Solutions Inc's fury and to the resigned frustration
>>of Michael Sondow of the International Congress of Independent
>>Internet Users (ICIIU), two NSI representatives and Sondow were
>>barred from participating in a teleconference held by the
>>provisional Names Council, part of the Domain Name Supporting
>>Organization (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>>Names and Numbers. "Part of what NSI has been involved with
>>during this whole three-year process has been making sure the
>>spirit of the White Paper is followed," NSI's Brian
>>O'Shaughnessy told ComputerWire. "Now we're saying the process
>>has gone wrong. We're worried about revocability. This may have
>>gone beyond the point of no return."
>>
>>NSI's beef is that five Names Council representatives, two of
>>whom were from MCI, effectively held a closed meeting after
>>relegating NSI's Don Telage to observer status and booting
>>NSI's Richard Sexton and ICIIU's Sondow off the call
>>altogether. Leaving aside the fact that by-laws prohibit two
>>members of a single company from serving on the board, NSI
>>cites Article III 1, which states that the Corporation and its
>>subordinate entities "shall operate to the maximum extend
>>feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
>>procedures designed to endure fairness." The bylaws also state
>>call for open electronic attendance by all interested parties.
>>As if all that weren't enough, NSI is also unhappy that of the
>>21 seats assigned to the seven "constituencies", its own
>>constituency - the global Top Level Domains, or gTLDs - gets
>>only one seat, rather than the more logical three. That one
>>seat does go to NSI, but the company, which represents over 90%
>>of the gTLDs, had hoped that it would be able to give two more
>>seats away.
>>
>>The controversy over the Names Council meeting is symptomatic
>>of larger problems with ICANN and its board of directors.
>>O'Shaughnessy points out that IANA, a two-person, $250,000
>>outfit, has been replaced by a nine-member board with an annual
>>budget of $5.9m. NSI is worried about that figure, too, as it
>>has 5.9 million registrants in its database. Is ICANN plotting
>>to levy a $1 tax on everyone who owns a domain name? But the
>>most serious question, which O'Shaughnessy and Sondow raised
>>independently, is that the "interim" board of directors is now
>>calling itself the "initial" board. The interim board was
>>supposed to incorporate and pave the way for an elected board
>>of eighteen members. That elected "initial" board would be
>>entitled to change the by-laws. By changing its name, the
>>interim board appears to be side-stepping democratic procedure
>>and claiming the right to change the by-laws for itself. This
>>has annoyed a lot of people. "Who chose them?" O'Shaughnessy
>>wants to know. "It's not clear that Postel chose those people."
>>
>>Sondow says the real power is with the members of the Internet
>>Society (ISOC), who are picking up the bills for ICANN. He
>>suggests that those members, especially AT&T, IBM and (there's
>>that name again!) MCI, are seeking to regain control of the
>>internet by hijacking the supposedly representative domain name
>>registration process. Supporting that view is Telage's
>>observation that the un-elected board is now imposing top-down
>>endorsements of the World Intellectual Property Treaty (WIPO)
>>treaty. "It's worrisome, very worrisome," a clearly agitated
>>Telage told ComputerWire, "I think this is about control. There
>>is a clear coalition between the ISOC [Council of Registrars]
>>CORE and people from the trademark and intellectual property
>>community. They're talking about how to ram WIPO through the
>>working groups as fast as possible, without consultation.
>>They're saying, let's just go through the motions. After they
>>locked us out, it was a love-in. It was an amazing experience."
>>ICANN interim president and CEO Michael Roberts was travelling
>>and could not be reached for comment.
>
>--- end forwarded text
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
