[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] Joe Sims repsonds to criticism of Reform document

Bellow is Joe Sims timely response to my random-bits missive.  Sims refers
to "characterizations of agents provocateur like Jamie, whose main interest
is in advancing a very specific political agenda that has already been
demonstrated to not command consensus support in the ICANN community."
Actually, the ICANN GA just voted 3 to 1 in favor of a motion I proposed
asking the DoC to rebid the ICANN contracts, so I'm not sure what his point
is here.

Joe also says I have a discredited view that anything other than "direct
elections is unacceptable for world democracy."   In Thursdays' Washington
Post, Stuart Lynn characterised those asking for rebid of the DoC ICANN
contracts as a "group that is trying to transform ICANN from a limited
technical body into a worldwide experiment in global democracy," which is
funny, because the whole fight is how to actually have meaningful limits on
ICANN, and keep ICANN out of the politics or non-technical policy making.  I
personally would be happy if ICANN was so reduced in power that one one
cared who was on the board of directors (just like I don't worry much about
entities that assign telephone numbers).    Indeed, there is much support
for the *very thin* ICANN models, such as that proposed by IETF chair Harald

That said, we do care about how the ICANN board *is* elected, and we don't
think it is a good idea to have the ICANN board hand pick the persons who
elect the ICANN board  --  particularly given ICANN's clearly stated goal
regarding what it is supposed to do, and the complete lack of limits on what
it *can* do.  For example, look at this part of the policy making process
document, apparently written by Joe Sims.

"The fact is that the Internet, and its component part the Domain Name
System, is a global resource. It is not amenable to multiple national
regulatory approaches -at least if the goal is to allow the Internet to
continue to provide ever more opportunities to ever more people at a
relatively low cost. And in any event national regulation, given the nature
of the resource, is likely to be ineffective. Thus, the options are some
form of global governmental body, or a global private-sector body. There do
not appear to be any other workable alternatives."

Should the board that does what is described in the policy making document
be one that is accountable only to itself?   Is is "radical" to see the
flaws in this?  You decide.   In any case, Joe Sims' note is below.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <RANdom-bits@lists.essential.org>; "vint cerf"
<vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>; "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ,UNAM"
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: global government without representation ICANN style
Jamie Love wrote:

"WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? The Committee on ICANN "reform" and evolution has
released its most astonishing document yet. 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). It
takes the current dysfunctional body, the ICANN DNSO, which is supposed to
make bottom up policy for domain name policy, and it replaces it with a
system where the ICANN board directly picks its chair and as many members of
the steering committee it considers appropriate. It eliminates an elected
chair of the DNSO General Assembly. 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. It gets rid of the "PSO", which includes
independent groups as the IETF or the W3C, which have not been sufficiently
docile. The DoC MoU required independent review process, which was never
implemented, is now toast. 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 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"

Jamie, you're drinking too much coffee too early -- or more likely, you
fully understand that you are mischaracterizing, but do it anyway.  Anyone
that takes the time to actually read the recommendations would notice that
the Nominating Committee that you rail against is explicitly intended to be
a broad-based representative body; that the recommendations explictly call
for changes in the current GNSO constituencies to better reflect all
relevant interests; and that the criteria for Board members specifically
includes representation of all affected communities.  Of course, we all know
that your political objective is to push the position that anything other
than direct elections is unacceptable for world democracy, so it is
tactically necessary for you ignore these facts.  This means that people
interested in knowing what the recommendations really call for will have to
read the actual document rather than rely on the characterizations of agents
provocateur like Jamie, whose main interest is in advancing a very specific
political agenda that has already been demonstrated to not command consensus
support in the ICANN community.

I've copied this to the GA list to save the trouble of having to respond to
a similar screed on that list later.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

Random-bits mailing list

James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

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