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

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



Cheers to you,

Yes it is true we must write and write often.

I believe it is our obligation to help our representatives.  Don Evans is our
most direct administrator.
But he seems to have deaf ears and so perhaps elected officials are a better
avenue.

Eric

Bruce Young wrote:

> At this point, all Joe et al have the same power they've always had: tell
> the Big Lie often enough and long enough and people may eventually believe
> you.  Fortunately, the lengthy group of very-visible public interest groups
> endorsing the rebid has thrust the ICANN democracy issue so far into the
> light that even the mainstream press has begun taking interest.  Hopefully,
> even if a rebid doesn't occur, election-year politics may possibly force
> real reform on ICANN.  Now is the time for all US citizens on this forum to
> write your Representatives and Senators once again and  urge their support
> for rebid or reform that results in a controlling voice for the At Large.
> Our members in other lands should attempt to get their governments or and
> professional bodies of which they are members to ontact the DoC and openly
> support the same.
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon
> Bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 6:11 AM
> To: NCDNHC-discuss list; atlarge discuss list
> Subject: [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
> Alvestrand.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-process-07may02.ht
> m
> "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.
>
>  Jamie
>
> ----- 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"
> <apisan@servidor.unam.mx/@jdrp.com,<reform-comments@icann.org>
> 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
> Random-bits@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
>
> --------------------------------
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


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