Hi Jonathan,
This email is one of the most ironic
I've ever seen, coming from the Harvard
Berkman Center.
To my knowledge, I have never argued for
a community consensus approach to Internet
Governance. It is simply not consistent
with my views on Governance.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I support
fair and open processes, and the protection
of minority interests. A straight Democracy
accomplishes none of those things, as it can
be more closely equated with "mob rule."
(hence my reference to wolfs and sheep)
FWIW, I am a fan of limited Constitution
Republics, like the U.S. is supposed to be.
The fact that you, a Berkman fellow, noted
legal scholar, would imply that process is
not important is beyond comprehension. In
fact, it appears that you have adopted the
ICANN Board's style of using their by-laws
when it supports their hidden agenda, and
ignoring it when it doesn't.
Is it any wonder that I've called you an
ICANN apologist?
More comments below . . .
At 11:14 AM 7/10/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>Jay,
>
>The vehicle of law vs. who shouts loudest seems to me a tough question.
>
>If ICANN made simple rules and hewed to them in a vacuum it'd be criticized
>for "ignoring community consensus" and acting unaccountably--you've been
>one of the strongest proponents of ICANN (or anything serving its function)
>deriving legitimacy through how well it represents that consensus. If
>ICANN purports to represent consensus--and change a policy as a result--it
>can be criticized for "caving in to whomever shouts loudest" and changing
>course from its prior rules.
>
>I agree with the view that consensus cannot be measured by who shouts
>loudest at a meeting, or even--at least in this highly politicized
>context--by who hums at a meeting, as the IETF would measure it. The
>problem goes a level higher with membership, too: make membership open, and
>there's a danger that whoever can push enough people to the ballot box can
>take the election, regardless of what the "overall" community preference
>might be.
Let's be clear here.
Membership for memberships sake is nothing
more than gaming the system. The people who
are the most knowledgeable on matters of
Internet governance, are already part of
the debate.
Any attempt at outreach (aka ballot stuffing)
is simply an attempt to capture the process.
As I said in Berlin, pick an arbitrary date
(i.e. May31st, 1999), and anyone who has ever
responded to the USG or one of the DNS wars
mailing lists should be qualified to vote.
Let's get on with it.
As Kerry so aptly pointed out, this Board's
reign of terror is supposed to be over in
September. I say not a moment too soon.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>Some people at the Berlin meeting advocated limiting membership
>to "stakeholders" as a result--though I haven't yet seen or been able to
>think of a satisfying limiting principle.
>
>All this said, I'm curious: how do we measure that elusive thing called
>consensus? And, on the merits, do you think any one entity, whether NSI or
>MCI or CORE or anyone else, should pick three seats to the Names
>Council? ...JZ
>
>At 10:54 AM 7/10/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> >>As NSI's representatives at the Berlin ICANN meetings have surely informed
> >>you, there appeared to be a near-unanimous sentiment expressed at the
>public
> >>ICANN meeting on May 26 that no one company should be able to place more
> >>than one representative on the Names Council.
>
>>Hi Mike,
>>
>>Is ICANN a vehicle of law, or is it a vehicle of
>>whomever shouts the loudest at an open meeting?
>>(which, coincidentally, was held in conjunction
>>with an ISOC meeting).
>>
>>
>> >>The peculiar situation of the
>> >>gTLD Constituency Group -- at the moment, NSI is the only member -- means
>> >>that, absent compliance with the Board's request, a single company would
>> >>select one-seventh of the members of the Names Council. It seemed clear in
>> >>Berlin that the community consensus, with which I and the Board agree, was
>> >>that no one company should have that level of influence in a body that is
>> >>designed to be broadly representative of the various worldwide communities
>> >>of interest that constitute the DNSO.
>>
>>
>>Then why did the Board write their by-laws to
>>specifically *give* NSI the right to select one-
>>seventh of the members of the Names Council?
>>
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/bylaws-09apr99.html
>>
>>VI-B:3(c) Members of each Constituency shall select three individuals to
>>represent that Constituency on the NC . . . no such member may make more
>>than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this
>>limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than three members.
>>
>>
>> >>Your letter of last week, which nominates an employee plus two of your
>> >>lawyers to the Names Council, is not consistent with the views of the
>> >>community. Since this is the second letter from Network Solutions which
>> does
>> >>not accept the consensus view, the ICANN Board must now do what it is
>> >>supposed to do: follow the community consensus.
>>
>>
>>I agree with William and others, that you and
>>the ICANN Board are a party to the gaming and
>>capture of the DNSO, and this letter is simply
>>
>>another bogus attempt to retain a controllable
>>majority within that body.
>>
>>Jay.
>
>
>Jon Zittrain
>Harvard Law School
>Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
>Lecturer on Law
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is98
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj
>+ 1 617 495 4643
>+ 1 617 495 7641 (fax)
>
