Michael,
We are not connecting, and I am sorry about that. You are seething with
anger. I'm sure that accounts for much of what is below, both the errors and
the unfairness.
There is, however, limited bandwidth in a debate that I believe is crucial:
ICANN's future. That debate, in my view, is about whether an organization
will be captured by narrow special interests; whether it will become the IP
police; whether it will jettison the "at-large" membership structure;
whether it will continue to concentrate power so as to increase its own.
That debate is not, in my view, about whether you respect a bunch of law
professors, or who did what in the fall of 1998. I jumped into "what the
debate is not" because I viewed what you have said as unfair and inaccurate.
In particular, it was inaccurate about what I did when I attempted to get
IANA and NSI to sit down to a meeting to acknowledge and accept the
extraordinary work of the IFWP.
You have stated, falsely and recklessly, that Berkman (and because I was the
negotiator, that means I) stopped the final meeting. That claim is reckless,
because even a simple review of the evidence would show you the contrary.
(See, for example, the minutes of the IFWP teleconferences, which are
contrary to your claims. <http://www.domainhandbook.com/scmin.html#090598>)
That claim is also false, as I know personally. But rather than continue
here this (in my view) counter productive dialog, I make this challenge to
you, Michael:
(1) You and I will agree to the selection of a professional arbitrator (you
pick 5, I will select one from that 5).
(2) That arbitrator will be charged with the task of determining whether the
claims you have made about my involvement in the final IFWP meeting are
true.
(3) I will give that arbitrator complete access to all my email and
correspondence; I will ask the same of my colleagues.
(4) If the arbitrator concludes that your assertions about my involvement in
this process are true, then I will: (a) pay the cost of the arbitration, (b)
donate $10,000 to the charity of your choice, (c) resign any ICANN related
positions I may at the time have.
(5) If the arbitrator concludes that your assertions about my involvement in
the process are not true, then you will pay the costs of the arbitration.
(6) If the arbitrator cannot resolve the matter one way or the other, then
we will split the costs of the arbitration. "Costs of the arbitration" means
the costs of the arbitrator and her or his incidental costs.
I am not a wealthy man, Michael, believing as I do that academics who do
policy should not be compensated for their policy advocacy. But where I grew
up, one's word was sacred, and one was not so careless with other peoples'
word. I will no longer debate what happened in 1998 in the context of the
ICANN election. Again, there are other, more important issues that my time
will be devoted to.
But if you want to persist in the false claims you spew onto the net, then
put your money where your mouth is. You at least have the no doubt many
members of the ICIIU to back up any costs you might incur.
--
Lessig
Stanford Law School
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
650.736.0999 (vx)
650.723.8440 (fx)
419.831.9295 (eFax)
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lessig.html>
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:01:10 -0400
> To: Lawrence Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IFWP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Domain Policy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, AWPD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?
>
> Lawrence Lessig wrote:
>>
>> We share the same values. I know this from our conversations in the summer
>> of 1998, during the IFWP process, and from reading over the years your
>> continued, and passionate, criticisms of what has happened. Our disagreement
>> is about strategy.
>
> You may be right, but values and goals change as a result of the
> methods employed to bring them about. My experience in politics,
> which for me is just a word for dealing with people, is that in
> order for the result to be useful the process must be educational.
> In the present instance, the education has been to reaffirm the
> helplessness and despair of the people in confronting naked power
> and might. Regardless of what becomes of the Internet, this needs to
> be undone.
>
>> You believe the right response is to kill ICANN.
>
> Let's say that I think it is necessary to undo what it has done,
> expose those who have done it for what they are, and replace it with
> a democratic institution more in keeping with what is best in our
> American heritage.
>
>> I believe that the best response to the threats that
>> ICANN presents is to devote my time to working to reform it, in a position
>> that could have some effect.
>
> You speak of ICANN's threats, as if its evil were in the future.
> What about the things it has already done, which in important ways
> are far worse than almost anything it could do in the future? I'm
> talking here primarily about removing the decision-making process
> from those who use the Internet, from the populus.
>
>> We also disagree about the proper way to conduct a discussion about how best
>> to proceed. That was the thrust of my last email to you. I believe the most
>> effective way to move the debate along is to give others the benefit of the
>> doubt; to apply a principle of charity to their words, and deeds; and to
>> avoid, as much as possible, attacks on their integrity or motive.
>
> That sounds like a good way to proceed. Unfortunately, the
> consequences of acting that way have been disastrous. Respect for
> others has been used by them for accomplishing deceit. There comes a
> time when it is necessary to recognize that not all people are
> honest and forthright, that some may be dissimulating, and to call
> their bluff.
>
>> These
>> presumptions are rebuttable, of course, and there are those within this
>> process for whom I no longer hold these assumptions. But that is the special
>> case.
>
> It isn't, in my opinion. So far as I am concerned, anyone who, after
> seeing what ICANN is and what it has done, still participates in its
> tricks and shams, is unworthy of respect. I cannot respect people
> who either join my enemies or, by their cowardice and self-interest,
> allow them to hurt me. My charity does not extend to anyone who, by
> their action or their inaction, hastens my loss.
>
>> You say you don't care about people's feelings; that you're "not concerned
>> with the reputations of individuals"; that justice is your calling; that any
>> cost in pursuit of justice is well worth the price.
>
> Well, I have not said all this. You are putting words into my mouth.
> This is where e-mail as a form of communication falls down. In a
> court of law there is a transcript and the chance to object before
> mis-statements can have their effect. I never said that any cost in
> pursuit of justice is worth the price, nor that my calling is
> justice. I am no idealist, and I certainly don't believe that the
> ends justify the means. Far from it. Rather, I think that the means
> are, in the present case, themselves the ends. That is why I feel it
> is necessary to actively oppose the installation of
> non-representative individuals in positions of authority.
>
>> But you are very quick, then, to complain that I have wrongfully attacked
>> your reputation, using words like "slander." Apparently when the matter is
>> about your reputation, it is no longer a question of "saving face," but a
>> question of justice. I agree with that point, as applied to you, and to
>> others generally. I don't care about saving face; I don't care about hurt
>> feelings. My criticism was of the unjust manner in which you attack other
>> people's character. That, to me, is a question of justice, and more to the
>> point, it is ineffective to the ends we both seek.
>
> I slandered no one, in the post you replied to, and your saying I
> had done so was untrue. As to the things I said about your
> colleagues (I mean the other lawyers involved in this affair), my
> criticisms of them were neither unjust nor an attack. I limited
> myself to stating what they have and haven't done. If what they have
> and haven't done is bad, which I believe it is, then the injustice
> is theirs, not mine.
>
>> "Slander" is precisely what you are committing (though there is an
>> interesting debate in the law about whether email should be considered libel
>> or slander, I'll take the lesser charge). You are making false statements
>> about other people's character and behavior, with at least a recklessness
>> that is unjustified by the circumstances.
>
> I have said nothing about them that was false, and indeed said
> nothing about their characters. What I did say was that their
> inaction has been self-serving. That I believe to be the truth.
>
>> In case after case, and repeated
>> in this email, you simply are wrong about the facts.
>
> I don't think so. I think you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I
> think you are unaware of the facts, so out of the loop have you put
> yourself, no doubt in order to avoid having to take responsability
> for what is indeed a very bad situation, but one which you could, if
> you were not so afraid, alter for the better.
>
>> And your errors, as you
>> realize, have been pointed out to you before.
>
> A little baiting now, Mr. lessig? I thought more of you than that.
> Now I see just how badly stung you have been by my remarks, and how
> much guilt you must bear.
>
>> For example, you write of the Berkman Center that it "was instrumental in
>> the demise of the IFWP"; and that it "call[ed] off the final and most
>> important meeting of the IFWP."
>>
>> You are just wrong about the facts:
>
> Not at all. They are common knowledge.
>
>> First, as I would have thought obvious, there is something more than bizarre
>> about the idea that in the mix of actors in the initial formation of ICANN
>> -- representatives of the most powerful government in the world, the most
>> powerful corporations in the world, the most influential law firms in the
>> world, as well as key internet leaders, such as Postal and Cerf -- the real
>> power in this game came from two law professors, and a director of a
>> nonprofit charity.
>
> I never suggested that the "real power" came from law professors or
> a charity. But are you trying to pretend that the Berkman Center - a
> principal Internet organization within Harvard University, not an
> inconsequential thing, after all - has not been an important
> collaborator and contributor to ICANN? I needn't defend the
> arguments, so well known are the facts. Perhaps you are writing for
> those who don't know what transpired, or who the Berkman is.
>
>> As I said before, I've seen law professors with large
>> egos in my life, but no one would believe something like this.
>
> What, that Harvard University and its Berkman Center have
> collaborated to make ICANN successful? Why should no one be able to
> believe that? Yale University has, in particular via its secret
> societies, provided the most prominent cadres of the American
> intelligence community, including the founders and most powerful
> directors of the CIA. Is there any reason why it is inconceivable
> that Harvard University has been a major collaborator in the
> creation of ICANN? And, as the facts prove, it has indeed been that.
> But, once again, you must be talking for those who haven't any
> knowledge of what has occurred between the Berkman Center and ICANN.
>
>> But second, and more to the point, I know first hand what lead to the end of
>> the IFWP process, as I was part of the negotiations in that process. Of all
>> the "parties" in that negotiation, Berkman was the last pushing for the
>> final meeting. We had been asked by NSI and IANA and IFWP's Tamar Frankel to
>> help broker a deal among these three actors to facilitate a final meeting
>> within the IFWP framework. Berkman had been, as you will recall, a strong
>> supporter of the IFWP process over IANA's; I personally had gone to Geneva
>> to help facilitate the drafting process, and had helped draft a final
>> statement of principles that was to constitute the source document for the
>> final meeting.
>>
>> Over a weekend in August, I had a series of telephone calls with NSI
>> representatives and Joe Sims, representing IANA to facilitate a final
>> agreement on terms for this final meeting. Sims resisted the idea of a
>> meeting; he wanted to bypass IFWP completely. But he agreed, in what I
>> believed was good faith, to attempt to negotiate terms on which he would
>> meet to allow their draft bylaws to be considered with the IFWP draft.
>
> There is something wrong here. The last sentence makes no sense. Why
> would Sims want terms on which to "meet to allow their draft bylaws
> to be considered with the IFWP draft", if he did not consider the
> IFWP draft of any worth? And what does "meet to allow" mean?
>
>> At a certain point in these negotiations, I was given reason to question Mr.
>> Sims' good faith.
>
> Will you excuse me, Mr. Lessig, while I stifle a laugh here?
>
>> He informed me that he had reached an understanding with
>> the key members of the IFWP board (he never named the names) that they would
>> support IANA, and not the IFWP process. He therefore informed me that there
>> was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing
>> organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage,
>> though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it
>> was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into
>> apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been
>> compromised.
>
> Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Neither Joe Sims, nor the IANA, nor NSI
> had any real power to cancel an IFWP meeting. The IFWP, I may remind
> you, was the International Forum on the White Paper, in response to
> the White Paper's call for an assembly of the world's Internet users
> to work out a plan for Internet governance. In that context, the
> voice of any individual on the IFWP mailing list was equal to that
> of Joe Sims, the IANA people, or NSI.
>
> Why did you not ask Sims for the minutes of the vote taken in the
> IFWP to cancel the meeting? Wasn't that the one and only way to
> legitimize its cancellation? Where was your respect for democratic
> process?
>
> You blame Joe Sims, but it is you and the Berkman center who are to
> blame. Your clear responsibility was to the IFWP, not to any
> slick-talking lawyer from JonesDay, or even to IANA, and certainly
> not to NSI, a small private corporation. You and the Berkman Center
> failed in your civic responsibilty. You compromised democratic
> process. In desparation, a few people who saw what was being done
> met anyway and formed the Boston Working Group in order to save
> something from the process that the Berkman Center had stopped on
> the word of sharpster from JonesDay.
>
> You and the other Berkman people are intimidated by what appears to
> you as power, and let your democratic principles and your sense of
> justice and right fall by the wayside. If you'd had the courage of
> your convictions, you would have told Sims and the others that there
> would most certainly be another meeting of the IFWP, that you had no
> authority to cancel it (and neither had Tamar Frankel, nor its
> Board), and that they could either attend it or not as they saw fit.
> Period.
>
>> You may rightly say I blew it. And you might rightly say I blew it because I
>> trusted Sims to be negotiating in good faith. Those would be fair charges,
>> and I have been more critical of myself than you would ever be for exactly
>> this reason. But my willingness to take another at his word is quite
>> different from saying the Berkman center was instrumental in the demise of
>> IFWP.
>
> If the Berkman Center had not consistently lent its lawyers to the
> support of ICANN afterwards, people might be willing to go so far as
> to suspend judgment on what was done to the IFWP. But the Berkman
> has lent its people to ICANN. It has collaborated at every stage of
> ICANN. For me and for many others, the Berkman has no credibility
> left as a democratic institution, because it has betrayed the
> Internet by collaborating with conspirators and, in my honest
> opinion, criminals. (You will say that to use the word "criminals"
> for the persons who made ICANN is an exaggeration; however, I don't
> separate those who gain fortunes by breaking the law from those who
> gain only a little.)
>
>> The lack of resolve of some IFWP board members was more than enough to
>> lead to its own demise
>
> Then they could have been replaced. Who elected them in the first
> place? This was an international forum, do you understand? No one, I
> repeat, no one had the right to disband it, and certainly not one or
> more interim board members or a chairperson. Since when do board
> members or chairpersons decide without a vote of the membership to
> disband international membership organizations?
>
> The simple truth is that some people did not believe in the IFWP
> process, and, because they are used to doing things behind closed
> doors through power brokering, expected and allowed that to happoen
> here. It is painful, I know, but it needs to be said that the
> Berkman Center is one such.
>
>> Berkman -- not IFWP, NSI, or IANA -- was the last
>> actor still pushing for a final IFWP meeting, but our commitment to the
>> process was to facilitate what these parties wanted.
>
> No. Absolutely not. If the members of the IFWP, or at least the
> majority of those who posted to its mailing list, had known that you
> and the Berkman thought that your commitment to the IFWP was to
> facilitate what NSI, IANA, and JonesDay wanted, they would not have
> alloowed you to organize its meetings. Your commitment, whatever
> that means, was to facilitate a convenient space for a meeting of
> the IFWP, and perhaps also to try and see that democratic processes
> were folloowed and that justice was done. Nothing more. No one
> elected you as the negotiator with IANA, NSI, or IANA. No one gave
> you the right to even talk to Joe Sims on behalf of the IFWP. And if
> I had known that you, a person irrevocably naive and having
> ingrained prejudices such that they will believe what a lawyer like
> Sims tells them, were doing so, I would have energetically protested
> it.
>
>> These parties got
>> exactly what they wanted.
>
> And used you and the Berkman to do it. And, I might add, are still
> using the Berkman to do it.
>
>> You said: "Then why didn't you [criticize ICANN] at the time, and use your
>> professional license and your influence to correct or stop it?" Again, you
>> are wrong about the facts. I did precisely that. The first article I
>> published in the Standard was exactly on that point; I gave a number of
>> talks at the time pushing the same argument, and I said the same to everyone
>> who would listen. But again, it is just not surprising that an organization
>> that had won the support of the US government, and key support from Europe,
>> and most powerful internet companies did not simply fold because a law
>> professor criticized it. Again, you have a bizarrely inflated view of a
>> professor's power (and fortunately inflated, if you saw what many professors
>> actually say).
>
> I didn't speak to your power as a law professor, but to your power
> as a lawyer. Your power to use the law to try and stop what was
> being done. And the chance to use that power has not abated. At any
> time, you and the Berkman lawyers can go to the people of the United
> States, through their representatives in the Congress and in the
> courts, and ask that Sims, Touton, Roberts, and company be stopped.
> Instead, you help them. That is, the Berkman, with which you are
> still associated, does.
>
>> By "professional license" I take it you mean why didn't I file a law suit
>> against ICANN? Here again, your view is animated by a bizarrely mistaken
>> understanding of the facts. You apparently assume that ICANN is a clear
>> violation of US law. You assert as much when you criticize the integrity of
>> Post and Froomkin for failing to file a law suit against this "violation of
>> the law"; and you pile on the claim that the product of ICANN, UDRP is "an
>> extra-legal institution in violation of the commerce
>> clause to the U.S. Constitution."
>
> I believe that to be the case, and to be fully supportable by
> evidence. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate
> commerce, and no one else. Certainly not JonesDay and Michael
> Roberts.
>
>> But the fact is, Michael, that is is just not clear that ICANN is in
>> violation of "the law."
>
> Nonsense. ICANN is in clear violation of the Constitution (Commerce
> clause and separation of powers clauses), the federal Antitrust
> laws, the Adminstrative Procedures Act, and the California
> corporation statutes. The only reason that it still exists is that
> the lawyers who know what's going on refuse to take action against
> it. I have already stated what I believe are the reasons for this
> refusal and won't add any more "slander" here.
>
>> It may be; Froomkin has a wonderful article arguing
>> that it violates in parts important aspects of the Administrative Procedures
>> Act; it may well eventually be held to have been beyond the power of the
>> Commerce Department to secure. But these are not clear questions; they are
>> extremely hard questions of law.
>
> Not so hard as you pretend. Alone, without the help of lawyers, I
> have been able to put together a good case. If a few lawyers
> committed to stopping ICANN got to work, they could have an
> iron-clad case in a few months. There has been conspiracy. There has
> been lying to Congress. There has been malfeasance by one or more
> government employees. There has been deception and the use of sham
> and trickery in the formation of ICANN committees. Added to the
> fundamental illegality of ICANN, formed by special interests and
> without legislation to regulate an important commercial activity, it
> would actually be hard for a judge or jury to allow ICANN to
> continue.
>
>> They don't become clear by invoking human
>> rights violations in Latin America, or by extreme rhetoric.
>
> You are once again mis-characterizing what I said. Why do you need
> to do this, if your arguments are sound?
>
>> The fact is that
>> if and when a court finally reviews the matter, it will be a hard matter for
>> the court to resolve. (Your claim that the UDRP is "in violation of the
>> commerce clause" will not be a hard matter to resolve. It is an absurd
>> argument with no support in either the text of the clause or any Supreme
>> Court authority.)
>
> I'm amazed to hear you say this. In any case, this is not the place
> to argue law. The unfortunate thing is that, because you are a
> lawyer, people will believe you and not me. That is the grave harm
> that the lawyers have done in this process. Not content to be
> themselves inactive, they convince others to be inactive as well. In
> an analogy I've made before but which is worth repeating, this is
> like the third man in interrogations: one to ask the questions, one
> to beat the victim, and the third man to repeat that it is useless
> to resist.
>
>> If I believed this were a clear question, or even close to clear; if it were
>> even clear to me that ICANN is a violation of US law, then I would not be
>> running for its board, and I would support litigation to challenge it.
>
> That is not how it works. It's the other way round. Because you are
> running for its board, you do not challenge it.
>
>> But
>> given the strong arguments that suggest it is a legitimate exercise of the
>> federal government's power
>
> I have never seen or heard a single one.
>
>> and the crucial issues at stake, I believe, as
>> Post and Froomkin apparently believe, that more good will come from working
>> to reform the ongoing work of the institution than by launching a (likely
>> hopeless) law suit to bring it down 4 years from now (when the case is
>> likely to have worked its way through the system).
>
> Are you saying that there is no system of law left in the U.S. in
> which to fight injustice and wrongdoing? If that's the case, you
> must be calling for revolution. That is what the Declaration of
> Independence calls for. Is that what you mean here?
>
> As to reforming ICANN, there is no way to reform a dictatorship from
> within.
>
>> And doing good is precisely what Froomkin and Post (and the Berkman center,
>> independent of me) have done.
>
> By convincing people that nothing can be done to stop the dictators?
>
>> The criticisms of Post and Froomkin have lead
>> to reforms of ICANN -- not perfect, and not fast enough, but certainly
>> better than it was.
>
> Better than it was? Are you serious? Has the interim board stepped
> down and the users of the Internet taken their place? Has the
> scammed-up DNSO been disbanded and a legitimate organization,
> representative and democratic, been put in its place? Have the
> anti-user provisions of the Registrar Agreements been deleted? Has
> JonesDay been separated from it? Has CORE been disbanded? Have all
> its policies been re-made after these changes were effected? If not,
> how dare you say that reforms have been made?
>
>> And Froomkin's latest work will, in my view, have a
>> substantial effect in bringing about further change.
>
> Change in his academic position, maybe.
>
>> But you can't imagine that people like Froomkin or Post might be doing the
>> work they are doing for any reason except their own personal aggrandizement.
>
> Why else would they do it? It has no effect on ICANN.
>
>> You say of them that they are just young lawyers, seeking some form of
>> compensation other than "monetary recompense"; Froomkin and Post are
>> apparently, according to you, doing what they are doing for to advance their
>> "careers." The idea that they -- like you -- might simply be working to help
>> promote the values of the internet is not even considered in your
>> attacks.
>
> If they want to help the Internet, then as lawyers they can use the
> law to stop ICANN and allow a democratic Internet government to be
> formed. Since they refuse to do that, I can't think of any other
> reasons than selfish ones why they would be involved. And I am not
> working to promote the values of the Internet. That is a bogus
> claim. I am trying to protect my interests as a writer, my ability
> to use the Internet freely, against those who want to control the
> Internet for other purposes. I don't believe hype about
> good-Samaritanism, so please don't try to con me.
>
>> They are simply self-serving self-promoters.
>>
>> But why is this Michael? Is this because no one, including you, acts for
>> anything except self interest (and if so, then what is the self-interest you
>> are advancing?) or is it because only you in this debate are acting for
>> something other than self-interest? And if it is the latter, then what is
>> your evidence?
>
> Sorry, but I can't make much sense out of that last paragraph.
> Anyway, I'm sure it's been answered well enough, whatever it means.
>
>> For you apparently have no idea at all about what leads to the promotion of
>> academics like Froomkin or Post. If they were really concerned about the
>> advancement of their academic careers, then writing the kinds of criticisms
>> they have is precisely the LAST THING IN THE WORLD they should be doing.
>> First, neither of them need any such advancement through works like this.
>> They are both considered among the leading thinkers in the field of
>> cyberspace law, and have been for the past 5 years.
>
> I suppose this last (if true) is because of what they've written
> about cyberspace. Isn't it?
>
> I'm perfectly well aware of what academics must do to keep their
> jobs. Primarily, they must publish. Most of my family are or were
> academics, and that was all they worried about. Publishing.
>
>> Second, if they were
>> trying to produce work that might induce other law schools to hire them,
>> this is not the kind of work that would help.
>
> I didn't say they were looking for a job. But every academic has to
> publish. "Publish or perish" is the key phrase. So cyberspace law
> professors have to publish articles about cyberspace law. This is
> clear enough, isn't it? Again, do you think you are you talking to
> idiots here? Maybe you do. That would fit in with your other
> arrogances, like claiming to know what's going on when you don't
> participate and are absent, and like deciding to drop the IFWP
> meeting without consulting the IFWP.
>
>> Law professors at elite law
>> schools have little understanding or patience of the internet. Careful and
>> detailed criticisms of complex, obscure procedures is not likely to impress
>> them.
>
> There's nothing complex or obscure about what Froomkin writes. It's
> about government corporations. Even I understand it. And what Post
> usually writes about is pure socio-legal history, whether its
> concerned with cyberspace or not. Nothing that law professors can't
> understand. And the Internet touch is precisely what does impress
> them. Cyberspace is the hottest thing around. But just keep
> pretending that up is down and black is white. Someone will believe
> you.
>
>> Third, if you imagine they are jockeying to gain lucrative consulting
>> contracts down the road, that is again completely implausible -- they are on
>> the wrong side of the debate if this is what they want.
>
> Not at all. David Johnson got a very lucrative position as NSI's
> outside counsel, and he wrote the same stuff as Post, as can be seen
> on the CLI.org website. Corporations are impressed with egg-head
> lawyers, like to have them on their staffs, and pay big money for
> mouthpieces who can spout all that chic cyberspace double-talk.
>
>> Finally, if you
>> think some how they get more compensation from their own university for this
>> kind of work, you are again wrong. There is no way to understand the work
>> they are doing here except as motivated, primarily and substantially, by the
>> same desire you have -- to preserve the internet against the dangers ICANN
>> might create.
>
> Might create? This is a very bad joke, Larry. Repeating it doesn't
> make it any funnier. How the @#$%& have they protected us from the
> evils ICANN has already created?
>
>> Bottom line on this one: You owe these two men an apology, Michael, and if
>> you want to act on the high principles you push on others, you will do so
>> immediately.
>
> On the contrary, they owe me and all the other users of the Internet
> an apology for not fulfilling their oath as lawyers to see that the
> law is upheld, in the Internet as elsewhere.
>
>> You have no good reason to question, as you have, their
>> integrity or good faith, and a decent person would acknowledge his mistake
>> here, and apologize.
>
> I have every reason. And because I am a decent person, I am willing
> to run the risk of incurring your and their displeasure by saying
> the truth as I see it.
>
>> (Again, as for your argument that by arguing to reform
>> UDRP rather than abolish it because it is plainly illegal, the premise is
>> false, so the conclusion is false. It may be illegal; I have indicated I
>> think it is bad policy; but it is not so illegal as to make efforts to
>> reform it corrupt, as you have suggested).
>
> What you are doing is corrupt because you know it cannot work and
> are doing it for ulterior motives, whether they be fear or ambition.
>
>> Finally, as I have indicated, the work Berkman has done on the ICANN process
>> since the summer of 1998 has, in my view, helped, but has been work which
>> has been done without my help.
>
> Helped ICANN, no doubt. I won't argue with that.
>
>> When I criticized ICANN initially, as I have
>> written elsewhere, I was strongly criticized by people I respected
>> greatly.
>
> Really? You respect greatly people who accept dictatorship? Is that
> what they teach you at Harvard?
>
>> One such criticism was from John Gilmore: His argument, reasonable enough,
>> was that ICANN was here, and we should work to make sure it does good, as
>> the costs of unraveling it now were just too high.
>
> Oh, for god's sake. This is the timeworn excuse of every coward and
> compromised person since the days of the bible.
>
>> I could not stomach the
>> idea of returning to working for the organization at the time; I said I
>> would give it some time to see how it progressed before I returned to its
>> criticism.
>
> Which is it: return to working for the organization (ICANN?), or
> return to criticizing it?
>
>> But your suggestion that this signals my "laxness" indicates again your
>> mistake about the facts. Though as I have said, I believed my time best
>> spent elsewhere, the suggestion that I have not done anything here is silly.
>> There are many battles being fought to defend the values of the original
>> internet, Michael -- from defending end-to-end against the efforts by AT&T
>> to architect broadband to give it power, to defending the right of hackers
>> to publish code to crack Cyberpatrol, or CSS, to defending the right of
>> Napster to challenge the business model of Hollywood, to litigating a
>> challenge to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, to fighting the explosion of
>> patents. These battles, and scores of talks given around the world to get
>> people motivated to join these battles (150,000 miles last year alone), have
>> constituted my life for the last two years. For one just married, and trying
>> to build a life with someone else, this may well be irresponsible. But I
>> don't think that constitutes "lax."
>
> If that's what you have been doing, then I retract the use of the
> word. However, ICANN is the great threat, because ICANN is the major
> component of the New World Order. Through ICANN, the international
> banks and their operatives the world organizations controlled by
> them (WTO, IMF, etc.)
> will permeate the planet and control the way life is organized on
> earth. This is being done for the advantage of a few, at the expense
> of the many. The Internet, run by ICANN, is their great tool.
>
>> You are a decent and serious person, Michael. I know from your friends that
>> you have suffered extraordinary hardships in advancing your view of what is
>> right. And again, your values here are right. But you are wrong and unfair
>> to promote these views by writing as if you are the only one who has
>> principle at heart. Or writing as if other people are not as sensitive to
>> their reputation as you. I have no doubt that there are people in this
>> process who are not operating from good faith; I have no doubt that there
>> are people who don't want an internet of the sort you and I do; I have no
>> doubt that there are many who would like to capture the ICANN process as
>> they have captured much else in the government.
>
> What do you mean "like to capture"? Throughout your post, you speak
> of ICANN as if it were something in the future. The evil has already
> been done. And ICANN cannot be captured; capture means a
> sequestering, a taking. ICANN was created by conspirators. There is
> no capturing involved here. You say "capture" and "like to" because
> you want to pretend that it hasn't happened yet, so that you aren't
> faced with the choices you fear. But it has happened. If you try to
> convince yourself it hasn't, by saying "might create" and "like to
> capture" and "threat", you will never be anything but ICANN's pawn.
>
>> But the idea that those people are the people you are attacking is just
>> silly. We can disagree about tactics, and we should argue about
>> strategy.
>
> Impossible, so long as you allow yourself to be used by ICANN, or
> convince yourself that you cannot fight them.
>
>> But I do not believe you have done the work to earn the right to question
>> the good faith of the people you are attacking.
>
> I believe I have.
>
>> And I continue to object to
>> the manner in which you conduct this debate: because it is ineffective,
>> because it unfair, and because it is just plain wrong.
>
> What is unfair and wrong is for you and the other lawyers involved
> to continue telling its victims that there is no way to fight ICANN.
>
>
> Michael Sondow
> =================================================================
> INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
> http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel(718)846-7482 Fax(603)754-8927
> =================================================================
>
>
