you know its really comforting to get a blow-by-blow commentary from jay
here..without it i dont think anyone would have a clue who the players are
here
pretty soon we will be able to refer to jay as the "mel allen" or " harry
caray" of the DNS world.. (oops ...i just gave away my age)
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joe Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Your Nando story
Joe Sims, Corporate Counsel to ICANN, joins the list discussions
for the first time since ICANN was formed. After months and months
of silence, Joe has chosen to snipe at certain postings (mostly from
yours truly :-), rather than answer any questions of substance.
This one is in response to my posting of:
http://www.nandotimes.com/opinions/story/0,1098,60802-96791-691207-0,00.html
At 09:37 AM 6/21/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
>
>In the interests of full disclosure, I am the outside lawyer for ICANN.
Hi Joe,
In the interest of full disclosure, why don't you please answer
the many questions of substance that have been floating around
for months. Like who's been paying your bills? Like what was
your role in the selection and solicitation of the ICANN Board
members.
And while you are at it, why don't you answer some of the
questions of substance that have been posed in the last couple
of days. Like the many thoughtful and specific questions from
Karl Aurbach? Or those referenced in Patrick Greenwell's letter
to Ralph Nader (you know, the one that has over 50 endorsements):
<http://stealthgeeks.net/nader.html>
Or, if you insist on slinging mud, why don't you
answer if this is you?
<http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/023.html>
>This was a good job of regurgitating the NSI story, but it was a little
>short on accuracy. ICANN is hardly operating "under the vague auspices of
>the Commerce Department;" Commerce in fact went through two rounds of
>extensive public comment before inviting the Internet community to form
>what became ICANN, and it ultimately entered into a Memorandum of
>Understanding with ICANN that clearly sets forth the relationship.
Actually, Commerce had multiple applications from organizations
willing to form Newco. In fact, Open-RSC and the Boston Working
Group both submitted their applications after you failed to
address what we felt were serious shortcomings in your draft
by-laws.
In revision after revision (there were five altogether), you
refused to address even the simplest and most basic objections,
like the need for a membership, accountability of the board,
and sunshine provisions.
Because Ira Magaziner always promised that the US Government
would *not* choose between competing proposals, ORSC and BWG
submitted independent proposals in an attempt to get you to
address these seriously flawed shortcomings.
Initially, the plan worked, as Commerce held conference
calls and even wrote you a letter asking you to address the
shortcomings. In the end, however, Ira resigned, and Commerce
gave you the go ahead with an MoU -- and a promise to provide
continuing supervision.
In hindsight, it was a sellout of the Internet Community ;-(
>All
>this information is available on the DOC/NTIA website if you had bothered
>to look. And it is not ICANN's members who "claim" that they are charged
>with ending NSI's monopoly -- it is the DOC documents and the agreements
>that NSI has entered into with DOC that set forth that goal. (By the way,
>the notion that NSI was doing this on its own before this process started
>is a joke; would you like to buy a bridge? When was the last monopoly you
>know of that voluntarily introduced competition?) You go on to say that
>"records of their meetings are not public;" this is simply not true, and
>the fact that you were apparently told this should make you worry about
>accuracy of the other things that NSI or its agents told you.
I strongly resent the Mcarthy-era tactics that are being used to
smear those who have reservations about ICANN's behaviour and
its actions.
--karl--
>The minutes
>of all meetings are made public; all Board meetings are preceded by an open
>public meeting that deals with all items on the Board agenda; and the Board
>holds a press conference to announce decisions and take questions from all
>comers, press and others, immediately following its meetings.
At 05:18 PM 6/20/99 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
This board has already established its place in the memory of man as "the
board that never held an open meeting".
You can protest all you want that the board is doing wonderful and great
things. Perhaps it is. But nobody on the outside knows.
All we see are the results.
And those results very clearly reject the meaningful participation of
non-commercial and individual interests in the governance of the Internet.
There is no operational General Membership.
There is not a single way for a non-commercial interest or individual to
have any way in any SO of doing anything more than make comments.
And the ICANN history, as you well know, is full of -comment mailing lists
which are really nothing more than waste-baskets being used as placebos
and pacifiers while the real decisions are made in private, in the dark,
with no real records, and unknown quid-pro-quos.
>Finally, the
>"Internet tax" canard: what do you call the fee that NSI charges to accept
>a name registration, and even more obviously the fee ($35) it charges to
>renew a registration -- an act that has virtually no cost at all to NSI? I
>would call it a monopoly tax -- 35 times the fee that ICANN proposes to
>charge for providing the vehicle that allowed the introduction of
>competition that will almost certainly drive down NSI's monopoly charge far
>more than $1. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this
>debate, and not simply repeat NSI's propaganda, you need to do a little
>more independent research.
The point is that ICANN is setting up an
arbitrary tax, while it is excluding those
paying the tax from any say within ICANN.
Can you say "Taxation without Representation?"
Further, ICANN is undertaking a huge expansion in
the costs of "technical administrative functions,"
as is its supposed function. Remember, the IANA's
budget was only around $500,000, a full order of
magnitude (i.e. 10 *times*) less than ICANN's
proposed budget.
Finally, where are the checks and balances?
Who in their right mind would give the power
to tax to the same organization who will be
spending the money.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
