Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] global government without representation ICANN style

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Todd, all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  Todd, perhaps you are not very aware, but there are already at
least two pending law suits along these lines...

todd glassey wrote:

> All -and Vint as the ICANN Chair -
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss@icann-ncc.org>; "General Assembly of the
> DNSO" <ga@dnso.org>; "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 6:56 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] global government without
> representation ICANN style
>
> > Jamie, all assembly members, stakeholders, or interested parties,
> >
> >   I must say I cannot understand this reasoning provided yesterdays
> > ICANN's recommendations for reform either!  Truly bizarre and
> > not even close to the requirements of the WHite Paper or the MoU.
>
> Why doesnt someone then just start a lawsuit against ICANN saying that it
> cannot, by its very makeup or process, represent the global interestets of a
> planetary-wide Internet, especially as a lone California Corporation. What
> more needs to be said?  Further why not escalate this and file a formal
> complaint with the California Secretary's of State's office to challenge its
> status as a California Corporation in that it claims to represents the
> interests of the people it serves, when it clearly does not.
>
> By the way - the easiest  proof to the argument regarding "that ICANN is
> incompetent to operate as it is", is by asking the question whether the DoC
> has the legal authority to speak for the other nations that are NIC
> impacted? I think that at this time the answer is a simple "No, not at this
> time".   And since the Internet is no longer the US Government alone... we
> have a problem here.
>
> What DoC is empowered to do now is to speak for the American People and to
> that end they can establish the contracts for the service inside the network
> boundries (nebulous as they are) for the US. But it ends there, unless they
> have contracts with these other countries to run their NIC's for them,
> similar to the operations contracts that many of the NIST labs have with
> others. This is a key concept since DNS is and was initially architected to
> have a single registrar as its root and this is its inherent liability.
>
> Personally I would like to see NIST's ITL take over the entire Management
> services for the "US Root Zones", since this would make the operations model
> directly accountable and easily managed by the people it was supposedly
> built to serve.
>
> Likewise, I would also like to see real eBorders produced and supported by
> the White Houses Home Security Office. I think this is a key concept to
> making Internet Law enforcable, at least here in the US. What you other
> folks do in the rest of the world about your legal problems is your issue,
> that is to say until there is a global representation at the UN for all
> global Internet operations and a global Internet Bill of Rights.
>
> >   It is my belief from reading this that the ICANN BoD and staff
> > are deathly afraid of stakeholders/users, in fact even paranoid of
> > us having any voice or vote on the internet in any way shape or
> > form.
>
> Yes I agree - and that because as a forum and organized group, we outnumber
> them, by potentially a factor of tens of millions to one here in the US
> alone if you consider the End-Users and not just operator/owers as well.
> Wouldn't you be concerned too?
>
> >
> > James Love wrote:
> >
> > > WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?   The Committee on ICANN "reform" and evolution
> has
> > > released its most astonishing document yet.
>
> Personally it does do some things correctly (the PSO divestitture) but I
> agree that it misses the rest of the bigger-picture's point completely.
>
> One of these bigger picture issues, is that ICANN itself cannot itself be an
> Global Arbiter of the Internet since it cannot take into account the legal
> requirements from each of the Internet-infected nations. It also is not
> ratified as the sole arbiter of what goes on in the Internet world by anyone
> but the US DoC that I can see, nor did it ever seek individual acceptance at
> the Individual Country Level.
>
> Further it has no real way of dealing with other constituency's like NANOG
> *(the North American Network Operators Group) and others like it. So like
> you, I have to ask how can it possibly claim to represent anything but its
> own interests to date?
>
> > >  It wipes away every single
> > > area where there might be independence from a completely all powerful
> board
> > > of directors, which can pretty  do whatever it wants with the global DNS
> > > system and controls its own elections (by hand picking its electors).
>
> Clearly, it is an attempt to put in place an appointed autocracy. If the
> directors couldnt get it right to start with why give them more power?
>
> > It
> > > takes the current dysfunctional body, the ICANN DNSO, which was supposed
> to
> > > make bottom up the
>
> operating guidelines
>
> > :> for domain name policy, and it replaces this group charter with a
> > > system where the ICANN board directly picks its chair and as many
> members of
> > > the steering committee it considers appropriate.
>
> Lets ampliify on this a tad. You also mean that ICANN replaces "it" (The
> DNSO GA) with a operating model wherein it has no obligation to take
> anything including input or mandate, from its GA group. The net of this is
> that the GA group is totally disenfranchised in this new plan.
>
> BTW - The DNSO is dysfunctional becuase of too many irons in the fire. If
> the DNSO was recharted to be the voting voice of the DNS Owner/Operators it
> would be what it is supposed to be, and that voice was specifically
> chartered to take the collective voice into the Board of the ICANN as our
> representation there, this would all be moot.
>
> > > It eliminates an elected
> > > chair of the DNSO General Assembly.
>
> This is unacceptable.
>
> > > It take away the DNSO's right to elect
> > > members of the ICANN board, and the new "GNSO" can't really decide
> anything
> > > anymore anyway, just in case the total control by the ICANN board isn't
> > > enough of a power grab.
>
> See -   See the above commentary
>
> > > It gets rid of the "PSO", which includes
> > > independent groups as the IETF or the W3C, which have not been
> sufficiently
> > > docile.
>
> This is actually a very good thing. Its time to neuter the PSO. It has no
> business making political decisions and it does nothing else these days -
> more on this in your commentary below.
>
> > > The DoC MoU required independent review process, which was never
> > > implemented, is now toast.
>
> And the IETF is the core of this refusal to provide propriety in its
> process - more on this in your commentary below.
>
> > > There is a loser pays arbitration just to ask
> > > if the ICANN board is not obeying its own bylaws, which of course it can
> > > change at the drop of a hat if it needs to.
>
> This is unacceptable.
>
> > >
> > > This document is so completely in your face to the US Department of
> Commerce
> > > and the Internet community one has to admire the guts of the current
> ICANN
> > > board.  Vint Cerf, Joe Sims and the Reform Committe make Bill Gates and
> > > Steve Balmer look like wimps.  Jamie
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/recommendations-31may02.htm
> > >
> > >          Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN
> > >       Posted: 31 May 2002
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >       Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> > >       Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN
> > >
> > >       ========
> > >
> > >       II. Board Composition
> > >
> > >       These general principles lead us to the following conclusions on
> Board
> > > composition:
> > >
> > >         a.. The following should be ex officio Board seats, meaning the
> > > person who currently holds that position occupies an ICANN Board seat:
> > >           a. The CEO of ICANN
> > >           b. The Chair (or delegate) of the GNSO Steering Committee
> > > (Appointed by BOD)
> > >           c. The Chair (or delegate) of the ASO Council
> > >           d. The Chair (or delegate) of the CNSO Steering Committee
> > >           e. The Chair (or delegate) of the GAC
> > >           f. The Chair (or delegate) of the RSSAC
> > >           g. The Chair (or delegate) of the SAC (appointed by ICANN CEO)
> > >           h. The Chair (or delegate) of the TAC if established, or if
> not,
> > > the Chair (or delegate) of the IAB.  (TAC probably appointed by  CEO)
> > >
> > > * ICANN requests comments on whether or not some or all of these
> > > should be non-voting members.
> > >
> > > * There should be [five to eleven] additional members of the
> > > Board, selected by a Nominating Committee.
> > >
> > > * Nominating Committee both nominates and elects member the [five
> > > to eleven] non-ex officio board members.  It also placed members
> directly on
> > > the GNSO and other ICANN "advisory" bodies.   It is chaired by an ICANN
> > > board member.
> > >
> > > * Basically, the ICANN board chooses the Nominating Committee,
> > > which in turn chooses the board.  The ICANN board may also have the
> right to
> > > reject candidates selected by its hand picked nominatng committee.
> > >
> > > NEW FACE OF DNSO (now called GNSO)
> > >
> > > ICANN board picks the chair of the new GNSO, and the GNSO
> > > steering committee includes "an appropriate number of other members
> selected
> > > by the ICANN Nominating Committee."
>
> This is totally unacceptable.
>
> >>The head of the GA will be chaired by
> > > the ICANN board selected chair of the GNSO.
>
> No way -  its better that the GA will elect its own chair. We should control
> the horizontal and the vertical, not you ICANN Board Members.
>
> >>  GNSO selects zero ICANN board
> > > members.
>
> WRONG - Vint - I propose to ICANN that the new GNSO ***will *** elect at
> least 3 of the existing directors seats, an no other seats will be added.
> That these seats will appropriately come form the PSO and ASO director
> pools.
>
> Its also my feeling that its time that the powerbase in the ICANN
> represented the people that use the Internet as well as the others. That
> means the domain owners and operators but it also means the end-users as
> well. Has ICANN ever done anything to take into account end-user rights and
> privilegse and to defining what they are?
>
> > >
> > > NEW FACE OF PSO:
> > >
> > > "The Protocol Supporting Organization should be dissolved."
>
> No!, not dissolved, but rather spun off and morphed into a more formal
> framework.
>
> PSO problems and the IETF
> -----------------------------
> The IETF's protocols have brought us to where we are today and as screwed up
> as that is... we need the IETF, only it  needs to be real "standards group"
> with voting and clear processes for proving protocals are admitted and
> processsed towards standardization, fairly and equally. And that this is in
> my opinion, very different than the way they are operated now.
>
> They WG's within the IETF also need to take input from other places than its
> own constituency, like as in making specific changes or additions to enable
> management based changes to how the Internet is operated. This concept is
> also something very foreign to the IETF of today. They would tell you to get
> screwed and go away. That you were not competent to play in their world.
>
> My take is that they must be made to also take imput from the Internet's
> management teams as to what changes are needed in protocols existing today,
> rather than only from the would-be inventors. This is one of the key
> problems with the process of qualifying protocols for public use. Especially
> since there is no public qualification process in the IETF's operations
> model, nor in the IESG's nor in the IAB's  forqualifying anything for public
> use onthe global Internet before releasing it - Hmmmmmm.
>
> PSO's Directors
> -----------------
> It is also inappropriate for the Protocol Development groups to select ANY
> ICANN DIRECTOR Seats and this must be changed immediately. They also have no
> business making any determinations about what protocols are served on the
> Internet, or in the politics of the Internet, only in the technical fabric
> for implementing global policy and this means not the policy itself.
>
> If you need justification for this, realize that the problems with global
> SPAM and other Internet issues like DCMA are to a great deal exacerbated by
> the ubiquitous release of uncontrolled technology on the Internet.  For
> which the IETF/IESG and its IAB managers are the only ones responsible
> today.
>
> Restructuriung the IAB in particular
> ----------------------------------
> The IAB is also a real sore spot in and of itself. It currently fills a dual
> role of embracing the IESG's (its right hand) standards proposals and also
> making these ubiqtously available. My take is that it in particular needs to
> be neutered by its being split in half. What I am referring to is that the
> IAB needs to no longer make any decisions on the physical architecture of
> the Internet if it is to also continue to admisiter the creation of "Network
> Standards".
>
> Its primary function today, that of managing both the protocol development
> and that of determining the architecture and what is routed on the Internet
> is a problem since it creates a monopoly that is currently unmanagable. Thus
> the IAB can only be saved if it is split in half and the currently existing
> IAB satys to only the Standards Process. The other half, would become the
> political keeper of what is and is not routed on the Internet. It is this
> group which will own the treaties and agreements that will make up the
> Internet today.
>
> It also must be noted that in the reform presentation, ICANN has made no
> provision for this, other than divesting itself of the PSO's which in my
> book is further a problem and justification for restructuring ICANN. The
> existing management are not about to fix this problem, just amputate it and
> that is not right either.
>
> In Closing
> ----------
> Personally I think that if ICANN is to be resrtructured then it needs to be
> a global restructuring which means the UN will have to at some time get
> involved. In the mean time as an American, I can only work within the
> confines of what I have power to control and that is the ICANN's operations
> within the US. Although I also have the power to say that I dont want ICANN
> as it is today operating as an International Concern under the blanket of a
> Califronia Corporation. That ICANN becuause of the legal limitation of the
> DoC's authority, cannot represent the World and that only the UN has that
> authority.
>
> In North America
> ------------------
> As to what to do here in North America, I suggest that if it does want to
> represent all of North America, that the ICANN Board submit letters to the
> other countries in North America asking them to ratify a single NIC
> operating structure for all of North America, and if there is a need for a
> prototype for such an agreement, I suggest using the "uniform timebase
> treaty of 1999" through NORAMET. This created the first eTimebase for all of
> North America and oddly enough ICANN knows nothing of this, further making
> me ask about its competency as a whole to run a global Internet.
>
> TSG {:-{)
>
> > >
>

More snippage...


--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de