[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
100th Issue of The COOK Report (September 2000) (fwd)
- To: debate@fitug.de
- Subject: 100th Issue of The COOK Report (September 2000) (fwd)
- From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:57:55 +0200 (CEST)
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
GAO Report Shatters ICANN Founding Myths: Neither Privatizaton Nor
Power Sharing -- Policy Control Over Operation and Content of
the "Authoritative" Root - ICANN's Single Biggest Prize - Remains
with US Government pp. 15 - 21
We describe how ICANN marches onward to the chant of its own version
of reality. The GAO report released in July 7 found ICANN's creation
to have been legal but it could not find any support for the idea
that the Department of Commerce had the right to manage the root. It
concluded that it was also very doubtful that the DoC had the legal
right to give control of the root to ICANN saying that it did not
look exhaustively at this point because the DoC told it that it had
no intention of doing so anyway. In Yokohama only a few days later
Beckwith Burr proceeded to muddy the waters by stating that she was
prepared to give ICANN operational but not policy control of the
root. An ominous development considering ICANN's statement that it
was ready to demand that the root sever operators sign contracts with
it.
After having caved in rather than face discovery on its first
lawsuit, at Yokohama the ICANN Board proceeded quite skillfully to
disarm its next, potentially more serious, opponent IO Design.
Having given the impression that it might rule on who would get in
the root, it collected a number of TLD applicants on its web site,
lied that it had consensus for only a very small number of new top
level domains, (between 1 and 3) set up a $50,000 application fee and
then announced that it would receive applications August 1 and
announce the winners on October 1. In one swift move it deprived IO
design of both due process and anti-trust grounds for suing it. It
will choose on October first .eu and a gTLD that will have no
negative baggage for its trademark rulers. Dot web will not be in
the running.
The Board also showed its continuing fear of letting in any outside
influence that might expose its operations to public view. For the
ninth time in less than two years ICANN changed its by-laws. To
ensure continued control by the original Dyson, Roberts, Touton
cabal, it extended once again the terms of four of the original
directors through the annual meeting in November 2002. It decided to
study the question of whether it should even have an at large
membership. In its efforts to make certain that no one outside the
original cabal would ever have a voice it entered the following
paragraph into its by laws: "The Corporation shall not have members
as defined in the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law
("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the term "Member" in these
bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board resolution, or in any
other action of the Board. Instead, the Corporation shall allow
individuals (described in these bylaws as "Members") to participate
in the activities of the Corporation as described in this Article II
and in a selection plan adopted by Board resolution, and only to the
extent set forth in this Article II and in a selection plan adopted
by particular router, when that ISP needs to move up to something like
defining an end-to-end service for a particular customer, there is a
big void. Providing such solutions are challenges that happen both
within and between Board resolution."