[ga-roots] Fw: BOUNCE ga-roots@dnso.org: taboo header: /^(To:|Cc:|\s).*ga-icann\@dnso\.org/i

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 8:30 AM
Subject: Fw: BOUNCE ga-roots@dnso.org: taboo header:
/^(To:|Cc:|\s).*ga-icann\@dnso\.org/i


> Hi Chris
>
> > To: "ga - icann" <ga-icann@dnso.org>, <ga-roots@dnso.org>
>
> Sorry, bounced for cross-posting to two lists.
> You might check but I think that neither list got it.
>
> It's probably better to choose one or the other.  Or just post to GA.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:44 AM
> Subject: BOUNCE ga-roots@dnso.org: taboo header:
> /^(To:|Cc:|\s).*ga-icann\@dnso\.org/i
>
>
> > >From ga-roots-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org  Tue Jun 26 03:44:13 2001
> > Received: from smtp.inreach.com (mail.inreach.com [209.142.2.35])
> > by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA25555;
> > Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:44:12 +0200 (MET DST)
> > Received: from NameCritic (208-25-50-66.stk.inreach.net [208.25.50.66])
> > by smtp.inreach.com (8.11.3/8.11.2) with SMTP id f5Q1i3E04577;
> > Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:44:04 -0700
> > Message-ID: <01ac01c0fde1$59d564c0$95128ed1@NameCritic>
> > From: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> > To: "ga - icann" <ga-icann@dnso.org>, <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> > Subject: The Internet is very informative
> > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:43:06 -0700
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
> >
> > And there is a great deal of good reading about the whole ICANN process.
> > Funny how so many within that process disclaim knowledge about the other
> > roots like the ORSC, then you find stuff like this. Very confusing when
> they
> > deny there was ever any intention of recognizing the ORSC or others.
Who's
> > intention? Joe Simms?
> >
> > NEW IANA FORMATION ENDING AMIDST UNCERTAINTY,
> > CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OF MAGAZINER & THE DEATH OF JON
> > POSTEL
> >
> >
> > ICANN SUPPORTERS USE CLOSED PROCESS TO CREATE AND SELL
> > CORPORATION THAT NOW MUST OPERATE WITHOUT JON -
> > MODIFICATION OF ICANN BYLAWS IS LIKELY OUTCOME, pp. 15 - 36
> >
> >
> > In a 28,000 word report we try to put perspective into the
> > formation of the new IANA Corporation now known as ICANN. It is
> > a process which very nearly has fallen completely apart at its end:
> > marked by a Congressional inquiry targeted at Ira Magaziner and
> > the Commerce Secretary, and by the tragic death of Jon Postel on
> > October 15 and 16th respectively.
> >
> >
> > We have undertaken a total revision and up-to-the-minute
> > expansion of material placed on our web site during the first ten
> > days of October. We attempt to trace the dual events that took
> > place during the summer which was marked, on the one hand, by
> > the IFWP process and, on the other hand, by the conclusion of the
> > Commerce Department's negotiations with NSI and a two year
> > extension of the cooperative agreement. We try to place both
> > processes in their global context marked, on the one hand, by
> > American European tensions over the looming EC deadlines on
> > American non compliance with EC privacy statutes and, on the
> > other, hand EC dislike of both NSI's "monopoly" and its tension over
> > the US technology leadership in the globalization of the Internet.
> > The ICANN formation cuts to the heart of how the technology of
> > the Internet will reshape, first of all, global telecommunications
> > and secondly world trade, the majority of which is expected to be
> > done on the net within the next five years.
> >
> >
> > What appears to us to have been a sellout by Ira Magaziner to the
> > interests of an inflexible Joe Simms, acting in a pro bono capacity,
> > not for Jon, but for the IANA function, may only have been Ira
> > Magaziner's having to adjust his policy to Simms' failure to deliver
> > to Ira what Ira believed he had committed to. We document
> > extensively how Simms worked with a small group of Internet old
> > boys to choose a board and break out of his consensus agreement
> > without Ira's prior knowledge or approval. We also document the
> > possibility of conflicts of interest between Simms' law firm of Jones,
> > Day, Reavis and Pogue and likelihood of having the open,
> > accountable and transparent new IANA Corp. called for by the
> > White Paper.
> >
> >
> > Two conversations with Ira on Monday October 19th have given us
> > hope that Ira understands how forcefully he must act to ensure
> > that Simms, who is now negotiating as the IANA principal , takes
> > the consensus process mandate by the White Paper Seriously. A
> > letter to be delivered today to Herb Schorr, the director of ISI, and
> > signed by Magaziner will point out in detail how Simms will have to
> > negotiate major changes in the bylaws of ICANN and related
> > conditions for the corporation's operation before the Administration
> > will approve ICANN's privatization of DNS and related IANNA
> > functions.
> >
> >
> > ====================
> > from the LONG article on the ICANN/IANA issues
> > =====================
> >
> >
> > Until the bombshell of the Congressional inquiry hit on October 16
> > and the sad news of Jon's death arrived on the morning of the 17th,
> > it looked like we had arrived at the finish line for a decision that
> > will irrevocably shape the future of the Internet.
> >
> >
> > And now, after talking with various people including twice with Ira
> > Magaziner on October 19 the following is clear. Sources say that
> > Magaziner believes that he has tried to run an open, fair, and
> > honest process. He believes that the letter to be issued in the
> > morning will enable the award of a cooperative agreement to
> > ICANN that will be the result of a process by which ICANN adopts
> > the most critical portions of the BWG and ORSC bylaws. He further
> > expects to have a clause in the agreement that will ensure that the
> > selection of the final board will truly be open. Finally he hopes that
> > this will pave the way this weekend to the acceptance by all parties
> > of the true consensus agreement that he says he has always been
> > seeking.
> >
> >
> > However, they say that he was caught off guard by the events that
> > flowed from his belief that, having said the private sector should
> > create the entity, he could afford only to suggest to the participants
> > that they should do certain things. He believed that he had their
> > commitments and trusted them to live up to those commitments.
> > But he found out only after carrying out the discussions aimed at
> > finding the necessary consensus with the Boston Working Group
> > and ORSC, among others, that many requests he had made to Joe
> > Simms to negotiate with these groups and seek consensus were
> > ignored by Joe. Neither group had ever received any contact from
> > Joe. Also Ira is said to be very displeased the results of asking
> > IANA and Joe Simms to have a list of board candidates out for
> > public discussion by the second half of August. When this date was
> > missed he then called loud and clear for the 23rd of September.
> >
> >
> > That although Ira expected draft five, and had demanded the
> > removal of clause 4.1 (d) and (e), Ira did not know that it would no
> > longer be a consensus draft between IANA and NSI. That he talked
> > with both Jon Postel and Joe Simms on Friday September 25 and
> > Tuesday the 29th. That the onset of Jon's final illness occurred a
> > day or two after the conversation on the 29th. That not only did
> > Simms fail to bring any names as nominees out before September
> > 30 but, of course, that when they came out on October 2, the board
> > was a fait accompli. That this was a major failure for the process
> > that Ira had asked Simms to assure him that he would not allow to
> > happen.
> >
> >
> > When today I asked why the government was giving the agreement
> > to Joe Simms since Joe's client, Jon Postel was no longer alive, I was
> > told that Simms has a letter of agreement for his legal pro bono
> > services signed with Herb Schorr the Director of ISI (Jon Postel's
> > home institution) on behalf of the "IANA function." That Simms
> > was always the attorney for the IANA function and never
> > functioned as Jon Postel's attorney. That ISI is now the client and
> > will be the receiving entity for the cooperative agreement, if Simms
> > negotiates in good faith. (We hope that ISI has provided Ira with a
> > copy of its agreement properly dated. Some readers may remember
> > that this is the same ISI who effectively with drew its legal
> > umbrella from Jon in its letter of April 4, 1997.)
> >
> >
> > Several sources I then talked with found this to be shocking news.
> > So I have made two calls to Simms' office to get his response. The
> > first call left the message with the secretary. The second time I
> > asked whether there was a response. No. Did you talk with him?
> > Yes. So he got my message? I didn't say that he got your message,
> > Mr. Cook. Well did he? Do you have anything else that you want
> > me to tell him? Yes, that I would appreciate an answer. Goodbye. I
> > made a call to Herb Schorr the director of ISI. Does ISI have a
> > contract (letter of agreement) with Simms? Yes or no? My call was
> > never returned.
> >
> >
> > This whole dodge and feint process is an example of what is wrong
> > with the whole process the entrance of Joe Sim's. What we have is
> > the appearance of a pro bono attorney where the circumstances of
> > his relationship with Jon Postel were kept (one must assume by ISI
> > and Simms) effectively hidden. I asked Simms earlier in the
> > summer on several public lists when I pointed out that Simms was
> > working without charge for Postel to reveal whether he had a letter
> > of agreement with Jon. He did not answer. I am only sorry now that
> > I did not press him for it.
> >
> >
> > I have heard some extraordinary assertions from the US
> > government about Joe's lack of cooperation with the same US
> > government. In this case it appears that Simms has arrogated to
> > himself the primary responsibility for negotiating further changes
> > to the agreement. (Another uncertainty is the question of who signs
> > on for the fiscal responsibility involved in the transfer of
> > government assets.)
> >
> >
> > I am very glad that Ira has made it very clear that the letter to be
> > sent to Herb Schorr of ISI in the morning will explain that Joe's
> > bylaws are deficient in a lengthy list of issues involving of political
> > transparency, fiscal accountability and many other areas common
> > to the complaints of both the BWG and ORSC. That this letter will
> > make clear that, if the US government is to work with Schorr and
> > ISI in handing over US assets to the ICANN corporation, Simms
> > must agree to enter negotiation with ORSC and BWG. That these
> > negotiations must be rapidly completed if Simms is to demonstrate
> > that he is working this time in good faith with the government.
> > That when the negotiations are complete both ORSC and BWG will
> > be asked by the government whether or not they accept the bylaws
> > that Simms puts forward. Only then will the government begin to
> > negotiate the completion of the agreement with ISI and Simms.
> >
> >
> > Ira, it seems, has appeared to be operating in bad faith because
> > things have gone differently than he had been led to believe they
> > would by Joe Simms. What Ira said he expected to happen did not
> > always happen, especially last month and this. We have had
> > perhaps 15 conversations with him since November 1, 1997 and
> > perhaps six of those since September 21, 1998. One thing that we
> > find very striking is the unwavering consistency of the process that
> > Ira has said that he has attempted to follow. Others have noted this
> > consistency as well. We have said some harsh things about him
> > recently. If he can bring off what he has outlined today that he
> > intends to, the Internet will owe him a debt of gratitude.
> >
> >
> > For the unthinkable has come very close to happening. Ira can not
> > permit the man who presided over such a non responsive process
> > as the one we have seen to walk off with the first legal charter of
> > the internet that would have been essentially accountable to no one
> > except the attorney general of the state of California. Stop and
> > think. Joe's firm will in all likelihood become corporate counsel to
> > ICANN. The Technology Issues Practice (TIP) of Jones, Day could
> > have been then in the singular position of having created a
> > governing entity especially amenable to the desires of the large
> > corporate clients of Jones Day -- the very clients that the TIP is
> > positioning itself to serve.
> >
> >
> > Can one believe that the first set of these unaccountable bylaws
> > were completely divorced from the interests of Jones, Day, Reavis
> > and Pogue's present and future clients? For example given that
> > Jones Day's intellectual property practice is among the largest in the
> > world, it is likely that many of them would not like to have ICANN
> > approve new TLDs since they will then have to defend their marks.
> > And is not there at least the danger of a conflict of interest in Jones,
> > Day being likely to represent both ICANN and those who may want
> > to challenge it? It is troublesome to know that Simms, who is such
> > a prominent player of late in this negotiation, comes from a law
> > firm that would stand to benefit enormously if the ICANN deal goes
> > through unchanged. And that Simms, having been just the pro
> > bono attorney, with Postel gone, appears to be the principal with
> > whom others are negotiating. Maybe part of the final agreement
> > should be that the legal contract for ICANN representation should
> > be put out for bid?
> >
> >
> >
>
***************************************************************************
> > The COOK Report on Internet White House Corrupts Formation of
> > IANA
> > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Corporation. White Paper a Sham.
See
> > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)
> > http://www.cookreport.com/sellout.html
> > cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how
> > to
> > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at
> > http://www.cookreport.com
> >
>
***************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe to the CANARIE-NEWS list please send e-mail
> to:
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Bill St Arnaud
> > Director Network Projects
> > CANARIE
> > bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca
> > http://tweetie.canarie.ca/~bstarn
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
>

--
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