Pete,
At first (quick) glance, I agreed with some of your suggested directions
for review of ICANN and its procedures.
On closer look, you are really putting down a nice smoke screen. If you
truly believe in the principlas you outline, please refrain from deflecting
attention from the issues at hand:
- ICANN has not abided by its own Bylaws
- ICANN has not made decisions in the open
- ICANN has not embraced the participation of the Internet community
- ICANN has ignored legitimate and valuable input from the Internet
community
- ICANN has not acted in the best interest of the Internet community
Gene Marsh
+++++
Hi Pete Farmer, you wrote on 7/2/99 7:58:32 PM:
> I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a
>substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government.
>
>Perhaps the establishment of ICANN was the worst possible way to handle the
>situation -- except for all of the alternatives.
>
>I don't think it would have been appropriate for the management of Internet
>names and addresses to remain with the US goverment. What about the EU's
>interests? What about Japan? What about developing nations?
>
>And I don't think it would have been advantageous to hand the role to the
>ITU, given that organization's historical record of alignment with PTTs and
>slow adaptation.
>
> I can imagine good or bad things coming from this new cyber goverance
>organization.
>
>I'm glad you're seeing both sides.
>
>I was one of the early critics of the original IANA proposals because they
>included no provisions for a membership or direct election of any Board
>members. I'd like for at-large Board membership election to move forward.
>I'm fairly inflexible as an advocate of due-process and sunshine.
>
>But these jingoistic/paranoid attacks on ICANN (e.g. Gordon's claim that
>NTIA has "sold out" American Internet interests to the Europeans, or his
>direct implication that ICANN intends to support governments' efforts to
>intercept Internet traffic) are way off the mark.
>
>Suppose, for example, that ICANN actually gave ordinary people the abilty
>to elect the board of directors, and it could not be controlled by big
>corporate interests.
>
>Could you go along with, "could not be captured by any single faction"
>instead? If so, I'm with you. "Little interests" can be just as
>obnoxious,
>imposing, and tyrranical as "big ones" if given the opportunity.
>
>And the goal becomes one of creating a set of bylaws to best ensure this
>outcome.
>
>Suppose further that privacy advocates ran a successful campaign to elect
>board members who promised to require every .com domain to post its privacy
>policy. I actually asked ICANN if this could happen, and I believe the
>answer is yes (not that such an effort would succeed, but simply that the
>board could elect to do such things, if it wanted to.
>
>So much will depend upon who will control this organization, and how much
>"lock-in" occurs around the main root.
>
>Ralph Nader and I are meeting with Esther on Wed, and we'll be talking
>about these things further.
>
>I hope it goes well.
>
>My hope is that you not get all hung up in the "who knew what and when did
>they know it" story of how the interim Board was selected. The selection
>was at best messy and chaotic. No question. So it is with the formation
>of
>most new organizations.
>
>Instead --
>
>- Focus on the ICANN bylaws and the method for structuring the ICANN board
>**going forward**
>
>- Look in particular at the prospective election of at-large Board members
>
>- Review ICANN's policies on due process, sunshine, conflict of interest,
>etc.
>
>- Review ICANN's performance to date in following its policies, and look to
>remedies where they've fallen short.
>
>- Identify mechanisms for ongoing checks and balances on ICANN's power and
>authority. Would it be wise to have some public body (with international
>representation and authority, I should think) to continue looking over
>ICANN's shoulder after Sept. 2000? If so, who would this be?
>
>I think these are the issues that matter.
>
>Pete
>___________________________________________________
>Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications
>Strategies Unlimited <http://www.strategies-u.com>
>Mountain View, CA
>+1 650 941-3438 (voice)
>+1 650 464-1243 (mobile & voice mail)
>+1 650 941 5120 (fax)
>
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
