On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 10:54:40PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > > > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > > > the directors to return it.
> > > >
> > > > You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope?
> > >
> > > What is the joke is that NSI, a private for-profit company, is far more
> > > open and responsive than is ICANN.
> >
> > Karl, you are speaking utter nonsense. One can complain that ICANN
> > is not as responsive as a government should be. But it is sheer
> > lunacy to say that NSI's operations come anywhere near the standards
> > that have been set for ICANN.
>
> Utter nonesense? Not at all. The word is "truth".
No, it's nonsense.
> Anybody can be a shareholder in NSI. Presently only corporations and
> organizations have any meaningful role in ICANN or its subsidiary
> structures.
Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY.
*Every* vote in NSI is a BOUGHT vote. There is no required
representative structure whatsoever. Furthermore, the only entities
that have meaningful power in NSI are entities that control large
blocks of shares. That is, you have *precisely* as much power as you
have money.
I'm glad you have finally revealed to us that this is your
understanding of democracy. It explains a lot.
> NSI's shareholders have the legal right to bring actions against the
> officers and directors of NSI for violation of their duties. ICANN's
> general membership might have such a power, but ICANN is dragging its feet
> in creating such a membership.
Earth to Karl: Everybody who thinks seriously about this realizes
that the representative structure is a very tricky problem.
Everybody who thinks seriously about this also realizes that ICANN
has very limited resources, and those resources are almost totally
tied up with dealing with the requirements imposed by the MoU with
the USG. Everybody who thinks seriously about this realizes that
satisfying the MoU is the prime directive for the ICANN Board. If
NTIA says "deal with NSI", ICANN deals with NSI. If NTIA says "do
representation", ICANN will do representation. Without the MoU,
ICANN is absolutely nothing.
> NSI is obligated to publish many financial reports and other disclosures.
So what? It's financial reports are only a tiny part of the
information that would be interesting. How about it's policy
making? How about its dispute procedures? How about a little
technical heads up when they jerk around the whois data? How about
a little public discussion before they jerk around the Internic site?
> ICANN has not published any financial information.
It put its donations on the web; it is working on financial reports,
and those will be public. Please bear in mind, once again, that
ICANN has a staff of around half a dozen, and ICANN's priorities are
driven totally by the MoU.
> The truth of the matter is that NSI, as a private corporation, is far more
> open than ICANN, both in law and in reality.
In certain carefully defined areas NSI must publish information about
itself, because it is a public company. But we have little or no
information about how it generates its policies or strategies or how
its directors reach decisions or who it pays off or meets with or
anything else about how it conducts its business. It's a PRIVATE
company.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
