Re: [ga-roots] response

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

A DOUBLE "AMEN" TO ALL OF THE BELOW.

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Page:
> Agree with most of your message but question the paragraph below.
> I don't think funding is really the issue. Joe Sims, Louis Touton, and
> Andrew McLaughlin are nothing if not bright. They are hard working,
> clever lawyers.

Who, it would seem, acted not on behalf of ICANN but on behalf of
the members of the Board of Directors.  ICANN, in such case, would
be paying those lawyers for acting against the best interests of all of
the rest of us.  If, in fact, the internet community is really the body on
behalf of which ICANN is to be working, then you and I and the rest
of us are effectively the "clients" of those attorneys, and we have then
been betrayed by them.  Investigation of that issue, with the question in
mind of possibly filing complaint against such attorneys with the State
Bar of California (I assume, without checking, that these are all
California attorneys) if there were definitive evidence of the possibility
I have suggested, would not seem to be out of the question.

Now THAT ought to get somebody's attention.

Bill Lovell

> The problem is with the way ICANN was created. From beginning
> its management has been totally in the grip of a small group with its
> own ideas about how things should be done. This small group
> selected the initial Board all by itself, and also constructed the
> DNSO in a way that was rigged to appease a small core of interest groups.
> So there has never been any real checks on how this gang operates.
>
> This group has always lacked vision - they think of ICANN as their
> private corporation rather than a global institution that needs to
> function according to impartial rules. The whole corporate structure
> of ICANN allows them to redefine the rules any time they want, or to
> disregard them and redefine them retroactively.
>
> They just don't understand that there is a need to build
> trust and impartiality into the institution over the long term. They are
> always focused on short-term measures designed to retain their
> control. That's why we got the response we got by trying to initiate
> an open discussion of the root. It scared them.
>
> That being said, I think many within ICANN's strucure are getting
> the message of new.net. They know that they had better get on
> with creating new TLDs. The problem is that the IP interests, to whom
> they have basically sold their souls, are dead set against that.
>
> >>> "Page Howe" <page@pagehowe.com> 06/18/01 01:24PM >>>
>
> I applaud ICANN for staying together on a limited budget and trying to
> please multiple aims and goals, but was the idea of a domain tax so gagable
> to people that we didnt create an organization with the best and the
> brightest from the start, and create a funded mechanism for receiving
> constituency input from the start, and didnt create a line of communication
> with registrants from the start.. and so on
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html