> > .... This is the unholy alliance that gave us the ICANN board.
>
>We still do not know who was part of that alliance, what criteria they
>used to select the candidates for the initial board, and what quid pro
>quos were made among those doing selecting.
No but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the whole
disgusting mess was the product of five men.
1. Vint Cerf through ISOC and GIP and MCI
2. Dave Farber through ISOC, and the networking skills and personal
relationships (including IBM) that got him entry this year into
Network World's list 25 most influential people in networking.
3. Mike Roberts through ISOC, Educom, and IBM
4. Larry Landweber through ISOC and the master plan of 10/1/95
5. John Patrick I through IBM and GIP, and through IBM's earlier
ISOC participation
You can betcha these men were the core of the alliance.
The alliance that was made with the aide of Marilyn Cade at AT&T,
and that acquired the services of joe sims and esther dyson. When
Mike Roberts buried the IFWP process in August 1998 with his
statement of withering contempt sent to the steering committee and
mentioned by Jim Dixon in a comment earlier tonight, Roberts sent the
comment on to Farber for publication to Farber's Interesting
person's mail list.
This mail list represents a really significant cross section of
decision makers in the field of telecom and information technology.
The 25,000 List members come from all ranks of academia, government,
press, laboratories and the corporate computer and telecoms sector
around the world. Dave Farber uses the list as a kind of current
awareness service of what's happening. It is moderated by Dave.
It's members send Dave items to share with fellow list members and if
he deems it worthy he sends the item on to the list. I have observed
it in action since Dave admitted me in the spring of 1991. some time
in 1992 the list burped and sent a message to list members with the
address of every other l ist member included. there were less than
200 back then... but they were an impressive bunch.
On August 28, 1998 we read on dave's IP list the follow endorsement
from Dave farber
The following is sent WITH permission. For those of you who don't
know Mike, no one would ever characterize him as a flamer or a
radical. It is worth reading and thinking about.
Dave
From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Ratification" - the IFWP Emperor has no Clothes (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:40:35 -0400 (EDT)
Forwarded message:
From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Ratification" - the IFWP Emperor has no Clothes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm appalled at the convoluted and narcissistic thinking behind
the so-called "ratification" meeting. Let's review the bidding,
shall we?
[snip]
======
Cook: My interpretation. IFWP had outlived its usefulness and
Dave's IP list was the best way to get the word out. I have no iron
clad, incontravertable proof, but if the ICANN archives are ever
opened, I am certain it will be shown that the insiders above had
already selected Roberts to run it. IFWP was in the way on aug 28th.
For in fact it was claiming legitimacy to decide the role, form, and
function of Newco. The caball on aug 28 1998 had about 35 days to
incorporate and launch ICANN. IFWP had to be buried, and buried
quickly. Roberts wrote the burial message and Dave Farber published
it to those who counted..... (the ip list).
let's fast forward 11 months:
There was a very important meeting in washington DC on july 30 1999.
Dave Farber was there. It had to do with NSI. i would appreciate
recieving any other verifiable information about this meeting
privately.
Jim Dixon ( Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd and Telecommunications
Director EuroISPA) said it very well to this list earlier tonight:
"The original participants in the IFWP process were interested parties
who knew what they were voting about. They didn't choose ICANN.
They didn't even have the opportunity to choose ICANN. Mike Roberts
and other representatives of vested interests blocked the wrap-up
meeting that might have given us a legitimate successor to the IANA.
ICANN represents a repudiation of the IFWP and all open processes."
"Did the little secret cabal represent interested parties? Of course
they did. Did they know what they were "voting about"? Sure -- they
were choosing a small band of biddable people to carry out their wishes.
Is this in any sense a legitimate process? No. It's about as legitimate
as a bank robbery."
and in a second comment tonight dixon concluded:
ICANN would not be here
today had it not been for NSI's agreement to pay the Dyson tax.
=============
Cook: jim dixon's right.
Jim Rutt came on in june like hell on wheels....
on july 22 Rutt screwed up real bad in front of congress
on July 30 Dave Farber was involved in meeting that, phrased
politely, seems designed to get NSI to cooperate with NTIA and ICANN.
NSI could have and should have dumped ICANN and NTIA into court....
instead NSI later signed ICANNs requirements.
Dave Farber tell us who was there? On july 30th in washington DC.
And again if Dave doesn't care to tell us, I would like to hear from
anyone else who has solid information. After all Dave is one of the
three editor's of ICANN Watch and if I understand what his
participation as one of the three ICANN Watchers should mean..... he
should have no problem telling us.
On the one hand, my conclusion is that Dave Farber remains an inside
player in this ICANN caball on multiple levels.
While on the other hand he publically maintains a more neutral
stance. Through public comments he calls for ICANN to open its board
meetings and, several months ago, he joined David Post and Michael
Froomkin as one of the three board members of a group called ICANN
Watch.
I request that those who disagree with my conclusions present me with
any facts that I have misstated or, if there are facts that I am
simply unaware of, put those items out on the table.
>(We've been assured that those selected made no agreements, but the
>question is rather what agreements were made among those who did the
>selecting itself.)
>
>There are those among us who are still alive and who know the answers to
>these questions. But they steadfastly refuse to answer. All we know is
>that one highly paid senior partner in a major law firm claims to have
>acted merely as the naive errand boy who had no knowledge of his mission
>or even who sent him on his rounds. And now we see that same law firm
>being, by far, ICANN's single largest creditor.
>
>And considering that ICANN instantly entered into fairly lucrative
>agreements[*] benefiting at least two people who are rumored to have been
>involved with that less-than-immaculate conception, there is plenty upon
>which to question the circumstances and to suggest the existance of hidden
>deals.
>
>I personally would consider the evidence to paint a picture that is the
>opposite of an immaculate conception.
i agree.
If memory serves me correctly the immaculate conception was Jock
Gills cute way of describing Icann's appearance on november 15, 1998.
>
>[*] These two agreements have an average run rate of about $114,000 per
>month for ICANN's first 8 months of existance. These numbers are computed
>directly from ICANN's "Statement of Finacial Position June 30, 1999".
>
> --karl--
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml
****************************************************************
