Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1312
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 4 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1312

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:30:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Karl and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Indeed you are quite right here Karl, as usual.  Lack of Will by the
ALSC was apparent early on, and even earlier with the ICANN
"Interim" BoD, which is well documented.  Hence as many of us
still around sense '98, the "disinclusionment" attitude from the
ICANN BoD and staff has been ever present.  This attitude
still remains...

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > ...  What she's doing is not about
> > some ideal (like Karl's membership ideas), but about the things
> > which are feasible within the current ICANN framework.
>
> A fully empowered, fully voting, at-large is quite feasible within ICANN.
>
> I can spend less than one dollar (US) and buy a share in Worldcom.  And
> that share gives me a right to vote and to obtain an annual statement
> from the company and to have other important rights.  And these rights
> exist as long as I own that share and as long as the company exists.
>
> If Worldcom - and every other public company - can do this, then so can
> ICANN.
>
> What we have here is a lack of will, not a lack of feasibility.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:02:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Kent, you have not told the truth and should apologize to the world for it.

~k

At 04:29 AM 7/3/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:42:41AM -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > Thomas, Jefsey, the reference to you and yours is a direct reference to
> > ICANN, I apologize to those who use English as a second (or third or
> > fourth) language as they may, like Thomas and Jefsey, not understand this.
> >
> > Please allow me to restate more clearly:
> >
> > I'm wondering, Denise,
> >
> > WHY:  NONE OF THE AT-LARGE PARTICIPANTS HAVE EVER BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT
> > ANYTHING SINCE THE FIRST ELECTION.
>
>They were notified.  A mass mailing to all participants in the at-large
>election was sent, notifying them of the work of the atlarge study, and
>inviting them to participate.
>
> > WHY:  YOU AND YOURS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF FREE TIME MOST
> > PARTICIPANTS DEAL WITH BY CONTINUING TO CHANGE THE RULES, INVITATIONS, AND
> > BY NOT INCLUDING EVERYONE WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE INCLUDED.
>
>Huh?
>
>--
>Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
>"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:59:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a clue" or ICANN must go!

All assembly members, stakeholders and interested parties,

  Is John or Joe telling the truth?  Well, you be the judge...

  FYI:

  From Politech:
Subject: FC: ICANN lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a
        clue"
   Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:22:37 -0400
   From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
     To: [email-masked]
    CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Previous Politech message:

"Salon interviews John Gilmore: 'It's time for ICANN to go'"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03710.html

- ---

Subject: Response to John Gilmore
To: [email-masked], Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:15:56 -0400

Since John Gilmore chooses to use my name in his imaginary history of
how we got to where we are, I thought it would be appropriate to lay out

the real facts.  Since both of you published the original interview,
perhaps you would think it appropriate to publish this response.

Perhaps Gilmore once had (or maybe still has)something to offer of
value, but that does not include either political science or history.
In
the World According to Gilmore, Vint Cerf is a traitor, Jon Postel was a

coward, and ICANN is just another manifestation of the
military-industrial complex at work.  Karl Auerbach is the
modern day Martha Mitchell (I agree there is some resemblance),
and Joe Sims has single-handedly manipulated this process to
earn enormous fees for him and his law firm.  It makes for
a great story, and to people like Gilmore, and publications like
Salon, I suppose it is just an inconvenience that it is almost total
fantasy.

Let's get rid of the greedy lawyer canard up front.  This point
simply reveals Gilmore's lack of understanding of the law business.  I
was
fully occupied before I was retained by Jon Postel, and would also be so

today if I was not representing ICANN.  The notion that I or Jones Day,
which
provided more than $1 million of pro bono time to Jon Postel, and has
since the formation of ICANN provided its services at cost, is doing
this
for money is a joke.  For one thing, there is not enough money in the
world to put up with the unadulterated BS of Gilmore and his more
personally offensive colleagues. The opportunity to avoid the
daily garbage spewed out by those, like Gilmore, that either
don't know better or don't care what the real facts are, is
highly appealing to me.  As I have already indicated, as soon
as this reform process has reached a point where I feel
that I can retreat from this warzone, I plan to retire from this
effort.

As for the rest of Gilmore's version of history, here are the
relevant
facts:

1.  Gilmore says he was involved in the process of creating the
original ICANN bylaws, but that "they" ignored EFF's suggested wording
changes
to fix what it saw as a lack of accountability.  I have a very distinct
recollection of those proposed changes, and of at least one
conversation with Gilmore on them; the particular provision
that sticks out in my mind from the suggestions was his proposal
that the ICANN bylaws incorporate the United Nations
Declaration of Universal Human Rights.  Gilmore is certainly
correct that I was not enthusiastic about this suggestion, but
perhaps others will not be surprised that neither was anyone
else involved in the process, including Jon Postel.  In fact,
I believe Jon made that point directly to Gilmore, who was
then and remains today on the extreme fringe of rational thinking
on ICANN issues.  The general reaction to his suggestions were
that they were either unworkable, or as illustrated by the
UN point, just plain silly.

2.  Gilmore's understanding of the Auerbach litigation is either
incomplete or disengenuous.  The issue in the Auerbach litigation
is whether each individual director of a non-profit corporation
has the unilateral right to make decisions about the distribution
of information from the corporation, or whether that responsibility
rests with the Board as a whole.  Karl Auerbach has always
treated his seat on the Board as an individual duchy,
his to preside over without regard to the views of his fellow
directors, and he has refused to even discuss this issue with
the rest of the Board.  Contrary to Gilmore's assertions, this
litigation has nothing to do with access to information; Karl
and all other directors have access to any information anytime
they want, and other directors have taken advantage of
this right on several occasions.  What an individual director cannot
do is to impose his individual views on the entire organization,
since that would mean that there was not one Board but rather
several independent Boards, each made up of a single director.
Auerbach understands this, which is why he has refused numerous
offers to actually review the materials in question, and why he
has yet to take his case to the Board itself, as called for by
ICANN policy.  Gilmore may or may not understand it (from his
statements it is not clear), but if he does not, his description is
simply ignorant rather than disengenuous.

3.  I won't bother to respond to his SAIC story, since it is
irrelevant to the issues facing ICANN today.  I would simply
note that both SAIC and Gilmore appear to have profited
from the same economic environment.

4.  Gilmore seems to be saying that the ICANN Board is too big and
too divided to be functional.  In his view, somewhat inconsistently, the

Board is loaded with "yes men, who'll support management
whether they're right or wrong."  Here again, the real facts are
apparently just an inconvenience for Gilmore, to be discarded
if they interfere with his conspiracy theory.  In fact, the Board
is not divided at all; the vast majority of its votes result in a larger

than two-thirds majority.  It is true that Karl is frequently in the
minority, but that minority is often a minority of one,
or less frequently two or three.  I find the math interesting; the
fact that the vast majority of the Board (including those
others elected by the general public) does not agree with
Auerbach to Gilmore means that the Board is dsyfunctional.
Others might conclude, on the same facts, that it is Auerbach
that is dysfunctional.  It is interesting, for example, to look
at what happened with the latest Board decision on reform -- to adopt
the Blueprint for Reform proposed by the Evolution and
Reform Committee in Bucharest.  Karl did not even deign to
participate in the Bucharest meeting, which was probably one
of, if not the, most important meetings in ICANN's history,
since it determined how ICANN would be reformed and
restructured for the future.  Karl was AWOL, choosing not
to even attempt to participate by the conference phone
link that ICANN had established for his sole use.  But the
rest of the Board was there -- every single one of
them -- and they unanimously adopted the Blueprint
as the roadmap to ongoing reform.  This unanimous vote
included ALL of the directors chosen by the Protocol
Supporting Organization, ALL the directors chosen by
the Address Supporting Organization, ALL the directors
chosen by the Domain Name Supporting Organization,
and perhaps most importantly for this point, ALL the
directors elected by the general public -- except for Karl,
who chose to abdicate his fiduciary obligation and simply
absent himself from the proceedings.  Now, to Gilmore
this unanimity no doubt merely reflects the fact that all those
people, selected from all those different sources, are simply
"yes men," merely doing what they are told by management.
This gives an awful lot of credit to management, and impugns
the ability and integrity of a large number of people, including
Vint Cerf and others, whose contributions and devotion to the
Internet are at least as great as those of John Gilmore.

5.  Finally, in response to a question on the international
situation, Gilmore says he is no expert, and then proceeds to
prove it.  Gilmore is one of a group of American critics who
assume that American values and reactions are and should
be determinative in decisions about ICANN, and who thus
dismiss as inconsequential the contrary views of those around
the world.  To Gilmore, there apparently are no other relevant
governments other than the US government, and he certainly
demonstrates no understanding at all of the complicated geo-political
issues swirling around ICANN.  This head-in-the-sand attitude
is unfortunately quite common among ICANN's American
critics -- who not coincidentally are far louder than the non-American
critics, which may mean there are fewer of the latter, or may
mean only that the Americans are particularly boorish in the
enunciation of their views.  The plain facts are that the US
government cannot act unilaterally in this area; the Internet,
after all, is a global resource, not the property of the United
States.  Just as we have seen in the US government approach
to the .us registry, other national governments have strong views
about these issues, and their views are not uniformly consistent
with those of John Gilmore or Karl Auerbach.  To those folks,
this just means that those others don't understand the true
values of  the Internet; to those others, the views of the
Gilmore's of the world simply demonstrate how incredibly
parochial some people can be.  ICANN must accomodate
all those views, ranging from the Gilmore's to those of
governments around the world, and try at the same time
to produce a workable organization that is not as cumbersome
and unresponsive as the typical multinational governmental
bureaucracy.  Whether Gilmore understands it or not, creating
global consensus is hard work, and requires compromise,
not extremism.

The most outrageous part of Gilmore's interview was his description
of Jon Postel as "spineless."  To be candid, Gilmore doesn't have a clue

about most of what he is talking about, and thus his views are basically

worthless.  I hope that this effort to provide some balance will
allow interested readers to make their own judgments about
what is going on here.

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

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the
attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.
It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If
you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender
by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:36:57 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Joe Sims to Politech re: Gilmore interview

http://www.politechbot.com/p-03717.html

What I find very interesting, aside from the totally defensive tone of Mr. Sims' 
tirade, is that most of the accounts that I have heard from those who participated 
in that early history tend to corroborate Gilmore's version.  

"...the Board is not divided at all; the vast majority of its votes result in a 
larger than two-thirds majority..."

In addition, his comments regarding the board leave out that individuals are 
represented by a serious minority of the board and that those selected by the 
DNSO are representatative of the consituencies rather than individuals, who have 
no consituency, AND that the most influential of the board members are 
squatters who have never been elected at all and do not even closely represent 
individuals' views. And this is a supposedly "non-profit, public benefit 
corporation" that works with "transparency" and from "the bottom up."  Really.

  Granted, ICANN is not making a profit, but it is paying outrageous fees to 
some who are.  Hmmm..... pro bono and billing at cost... what does that mean?  
Cost at what rate, exactly?  Let's see those "at cost" figures from the Jones Day 
side of things.

Joe made a lot of cracks and levied insults, but did not provide anything 
substantive.  His defensiveness is to be expected, IMO.  He is, after all, being 
attacked by many.  

It does not change the facts, however.  From every account I have heard and 
read from those present at meetings and those who knew and worked with Jon 
Postel, he was, indeed, threatened and did, indeed, cave in to those who were 
determined to place the cartel in power.  Then he died tragically.   This was a 
man who was human, after all, and did his level best.  He was rather idealistic - 
a very good thing, IMO, and saw that government control over the ccTLDs was 
not the best idea for users.  And that is just one area where he was right.  
Gilmore is also correct in saying that Jon Postel wanted to see hundreds of 
TLDs opened to the public and put out a call for those who wished to operate 
them.  It's really a horrible shame that he passed away.  There would probably 
not have been a manufactured shortage of domains because .com would have 
been one of many available TLDs in the USG root. He did want to see 150 added 
quickly and more each year.

After Jon died, ICANN was a done deal with the board entrenched, a set of 
bylaws that would give the board license to change them at willc to grab power 
over the public use of the USG root and hand out monopolies in any future TLDs 
it might deign to allow to exist.  All this, without any meaningful voice of the vast 
majority of internet users, who are, after all, the most important ones - or 
certainly should be.  

"This point simply reveals Gilmore's lack of understanding of the law 
business...."  
I thought it was a profession.  Hmmm....  What, exactly was the position of 
the law firm prior to ICANN in terms of income and notariety?  How much 
has it grown since becoming ICANN's retained legal firm?

"...Gilmore and his more personally offensive colleagues. ..."
Might Gilmore and his colleagues feel the same about Joe Sims and his 
colleagues?

Now let's see. Karl's lawsuit is over the fact that a director should have 
unfettered access to all the corporation's records.  He should not have to sign 
something that restricts his duties and rights as a director and he should not 
have to ask the board's permission to have that access.  On many boards, there 
have been directors in collusion who would seek to prevent another director from 
accessing certain records - could be damaging to certain persons and entities.  
That is one reason why any board member has the duty and right to inspect 
those records in full and without signing for permission to do so.  Requiring his 
signature on that questionable document is just what is to be avoided.  
Distribution of confidential material is covered under law, so why should the 
board be involved in granting permission with that caveat?  If Karl were to break 
the law, he would be personally liable for it, as would any other board member 
who did the same.  Material that is not confidential (personnel, legal) should be 
open to inspection anyway. Every dime spent and every dime of income to the 
corporation should be public information.  Isn't it interesting that Jamie Love 
asked in Bucharest how much was being paid to Jones Day to defend against 
karl and was refused an answer?  Why the secrecy?

Gilmore was not off the mark in his interview, IMO.  Joe Sims is.  Shame on you.

Leah

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 23:13:25 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a clue" or ICANN  must go!

Jeff Williams wrote:
 
> Previous Politech message:
> 
> "Salon interviews John Gilmore: 'It's time for ICANN to go'"
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03710.html
> 
> ---
> 
> Subject: Response to John Gilmore
> To: [email-masked], Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
> From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:15:56 -0400
> 
> Since John Gilmore chooses to use my name ...

> As for the rest of Gilmore's version of history, here are the
> relevant facts:
> 
> 1.  Gilmore says he was involved in the process of creating the
> original ICANN bylaws, but that "they" ignored EFF's suggested
> wording changes to fix what it saw as a lack of accountability.

There's an archive of EFF papers on DNS issues at:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/

with a subdirectory for ICANN?IANA/IAHC stuff:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/

EFF did prpose some revised bylaws:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana_bylaws.html

> I have a very distinct recollection of those proposed changes,

Too bad it is innaccurate.

> and of at least one
> conversation with Gilmore on them; the particular provision
> that sticks out in my mind from the suggestions was his proposal
> that the ICANN bylaws incorporate the United Nations
> Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

You're likely thinking of this paper:
http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/19980323_eff_ntia.comments

As I read it, it suggests the net should have guarantees of free
speech at least as stromg as the UN UDNR, but does not suggest
incorporating that document.

> Gilmore is certainly
> correct that I was not enthusiastic about this suggestion, but
> perhaps others will not be surprised that neither was anyone
> else involved in the process, including Jon Postel.  In fact,
> I believe Jon made that point directly to Gilmore, who was
> then and remains today on the extreme fringe of rational thinking
> on ICANN issues.  The general reaction to his suggestions were
> that they were either unworkable, or as illustrated by the
> UN point, just plain silly.

I'd say that free speech and openness are central properties of the
net, well worth preserving. We can argue about the details, but that
clearly needs to be one of the principles.
 
> 2.  Gilmore's understanding of the Auerbach litigation is either
> incomplete or disengenuous. ...

Tell it to the judge, Joe.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:50:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joe Sims to Politech re: Gilmore interview

Leah and all assembly members,

  I am in agreement personally with your brief, but to the point analysis
given below.  Yes, Joe Sims, should be very ashamed as should the
ICANN BoD and staff in still employing him as "Outside Council"...

  But my main interest here in posting this to the GA and the
At-Large list was to get others views and hopefully share them
with the DOC/NTIA so as to keep everyone informed as well
as for the GAC and the NTIA to have a more honest and accurate
broad analysis...

L. Gallegos wrote:

> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03717.html
>
> What I find very interesting, aside from the totally defensive tone of Mr. Sims'
> tirade, is that most of the accounts that I have heard from those who participated
> in that early history tend to corroborate Gilmore's version.
>
> "...the Board is not divided at all; the vast majority of its votes result in a
> larger than two-thirds majority..."
>
> In addition, his comments regarding the board leave out that individuals are
> represented by a serious minority of the board and that those selected by the
> DNSO are representatative of the consituencies rather than individuals, who have
> no consituency, AND that the most influential of the board members are
> squatters who have never been elected at all and do not even closely represent
> individuals' views. And this is a supposedly "non-profit, public benefit
> corporation" that works with "transparency" and from "the bottom up."  Really.
>
>   Granted, ICANN is not making a profit, but it is paying outrageous fees to
> some who are.  Hmmm..... pro bono and billing at cost... what does that mean?
> Cost at what rate, exactly?  Let's see those "at cost" figures from the Jones Day
> side of things.
>
> Joe made a lot of cracks and levied insults, but did not provide anything
> substantive.  His defensiveness is to be expected, IMO.  He is, after all, being
> attacked by many.
>
> It does not change the facts, however.  From every account I have heard and
> read from those present at meetings and those who knew and worked with Jon
> Postel, he was, indeed, threatened and did, indeed, cave in to those who were
> determined to place the cartel in power.  Then he died tragically.   This was a
> man who was human, after all, and did his level best.  He was rather idealistic -
> a very good thing, IMO, and saw that government control over the ccTLDs was
> not the best idea for users.  And that is just one area where he was right.
> Gilmore is also correct in saying that Jon Postel wanted to see hundreds of
> TLDs opened to the public and put out a call for those who wished to operate
> them.  It's really a horrible shame that he passed away.  There would probably
> not have been a manufactured shortage of domains because .com would have
> been one of many available TLDs in the USG root. He did want to see 150 added
> quickly and more each year.
>
> After Jon died, ICANN was a done deal with the board entrenched, a set of
> bylaws that would give the board license to change them at willc to grab power
> over the public use of the USG root and hand out monopolies in any future TLDs
> it might deign to allow to exist.  All this, without any meaningful voice of the vast
> majority of internet users, who are, after all, the most important ones - or
> certainly should be.
>
> "This point simply reveals Gilmore's lack of understanding of the law
> business...."
> I thought it was a profession.  Hmmm....  What, exactly was the position of
> the law firm prior to ICANN in terms of income and notariety?  How much
> has it grown since becoming ICANN's retained legal firm?
>
> "...Gilmore and his more personally offensive colleagues. ..."
> Might Gilmore and his colleagues feel the same about Joe Sims and his
> colleagues?
>
> Now let's see. Karl's lawsuit is over the fact that a director should have
> unfettered access to all the corporation's records.  He should not have to sign
> something that restricts his duties and rights as a director and he should not
> have to ask the board's permission to have that access.  On many boards, there
> have been directors in collusion who would seek to prevent another director from
> accessing certain records - could be damaging to certain persons and entities.
> That is one reason why any board member has the duty and right to inspect
> those records in full and without signing for permission to do so.  Requiring his
> signature on that questionable document is just what is to be avoided.
> Distribution of confidential material is covered under law, so why should the
> board be involved in granting permission with that caveat?  If Karl were to break
> the law, he would be personally liable for it, as would any other board member
> who did the same.  Material that is not confidential (personnel, legal) should be
> open to inspection anyway. Every dime spent and every dime of income to the
> corporation should be public information.  Isn't it interesting that Jamie Love
> asked in Bucharest how much was being paid to Jones Day to defend against
> karl and was refused an answer?  Why the secrecy?
>
> Gilmore was not off the mark in his interview, IMO.  Joe Sims is.  Shame on you.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:53:09 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> What we have here is a lack of will, not a lack of feasibility.

It may be practically possible to create an ICANN membership somehow 
along the way of a publicly listed company.  However, that's not at all 
the point of what I wrote:  When I'm talking about feasibility, I also 
mean _political_ _feasibility_: What can be achieved within the current 
ICANN framework? What can the constituencies and board be convinced to 
do?  Ultimately: What can governments be convinced to do? Rephrasing 
that as a "lack of will" and pretending it's not a problem for this 
reason doesn't bring this debate anywhere.

After all, most of the problems we are dealing with here are not so much 
about technical, but rather about political feasibility, aren't they?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> It may be practically possible to create an ICANN membership somehow 
> along the way of a publicly listed company.  However, that's not at all 
> the point of what I wrote:  When I'm talking about feasibility, I also 
> mean _political_ _feasibility_: What can be achieved within the current 
> ICANN framework? What can the constituencies and board be convinced to 
> do?  Ultimately: What can governments be convinced to do? Rephrasing 
> that as a "lack of will" and pretending it's not a problem for this 
> reason doesn't bring this debate anywhere.

What got the "debate" to this sad point was people who kept creeping 
backwards as the anti-democracy interests of ICANN kept pushing forwards.

Here we are, and people are "debating" a system in which they get no
votes, no right to information, and no right to hold ICANN accountable.  
That system is a condition of debasement, infinitely distant from what is
right and proper.

All that ICANN has done is to create a powerless and toothless garden
club.  It's nothing but the old trick of a company union game wrapped with
internet buzz.

		--karl--

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:56:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > What we have here is a lack of will, not a lack of feasibility.
>
> It may be practically possible to create an ICANN membership somehow
> along the way of a publicly listed company.  However, that's not at all
> the point of what I wrote:  When I'm talking about feasibility, I also
> mean _political_ _feasibility_: What can be achieved within the current
> ICANN framework?

  Which current framework are you refering to?  the VERY recent
illegitimate "Black-and-Blueprint"?

> What can the constituencies and board be convinced to
> do?

  It is not a matter of convincing the Constituencies.  The White Paper
and MoU REQUIRE a At-Lagre membership in effect.

>  Ultimately: What can governments be convinced to do?

Most of the EU governments have already stated clearly that an At-Large
id greatly desired.  So it is true with the US, Canada and most of
the NAFTA nations.  Hence this is also not a serious concern either...

> Rephrasing
> that as a "lack of will" and pretending it's not a problem for this
> reason doesn't bring this debate anywhere.

  What reason?  Political?  Where it there a political problem except
from within the ICANN Staff and most of the BoD members, of which
the "Boardsqutters" still remain?  Hence these/this argument is not
valid, Thomas...

>
>
> After all, most of the problems we are dealing with here are not so much
> about technical, but rather about political feasibility, aren't they?

  Yes, unfortunately they are.  And those "Politics" are being purported
by a few "Boardsquatters" and ICANN staff members that are relative
amateurs as their "Political Arguments" have no sound basis, and have
been shown clearly that they do not.  Hence, as Karl has accurately
surmised and adequately provided counter arguments for along with
many many others, to be much more than sufficient...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:51:51 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] lawyer Joe Sims to John Gilmore: "Doesn't have a clue" or ICANN must go!

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:13:25PM -0700, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > original ICANN bylaws, but that "they" ignored EFF's suggested
> > wording changes to fix what it saw as a lack of accountability.
> 
> There's an archive of EFF papers on DNS issues at:
> http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/
> 
> with a subdirectory for ICANN?IANA/IAHC stuff:
> http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/
> 
> EFF did prpose some revised bylaws:
> http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/19980923_eff_new_iana_bylaws.html
> 
> > I have a very distinct recollection of those proposed changes,
> 
> Too bad it is innaccurate.

Looks pretty accurate to me.

> > and of at least one
> > conversation with Gilmore on them; the particular provision
> > that sticks out in my mind from the suggestions was his proposal
> > that the ICANN bylaws incorporate the United Nations
> > Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
> 
> You're likely thinking of this paper:
> http://www.eff.org/GII_NII/DNS_control/19980323_eff_ntia.comments
> 
> As I read it, it suggests the net should have guarantees of free
> speech at least as stromg as the UN UDNR, but does not suggest
> incorporating that document.

Much more likely that Joe is thinking of article 13 of the eff version 
of the bylaws which you reference above:

  ARTICLE XIII: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

    Comment: As the administration of domain names, addresses, and
    technical parameters of the Internet moves out from under direct
    Government involvement, constitutional protections for human rights
    would be lost unless they were specifically incorporated. 
    (Governments are bound by their constitutions and treaties; private
    entities are not, unless they voluntarily do so).  This Article
    protects human rights, including free expression, in a way that was
    agreed to in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.  As
    we approach the 50th anniversary of international agreement on this
    document, we think the UN formulation of these rights is a useful
    point around which to form consensus.  You can read the UN Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights at
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_udhr.htm

  The Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no
  nation, individual, or organization.  The oversight of domain names,
  protocols, and other public benefits relating to the proper
  functioning of the Internet is a public good administered in trust for
  the benefit of an international community. 

  The Corporation shall pursue its mission consistent with the values
  articulated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
  Rights (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A
  (III) of 10 December 1948), and, in particular, the freedom of
  expression values stated in Article 19 of that Declaration, to wit:
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
  right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
  seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
  regardless of frontiers."

You will doubtless quibble over semantics, but the phrase "The
Corporation shall pursue its mission consistent with the values
articulated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
effectively incorporates the document. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:02:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:02:12PM -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
> Kent, you have not told the truth and should apologize to the world for 
> it. 

Actually, you are the one who should apologize.

From the final report of the ALSC:

    Regular e-mail notices and solicitations to a self-selected "ALSC
    announce list, " which included 5985 subscribers as of October 31
    (an e-mail to ICANN's 143,789 member At-Large mailing list invited
    people to "opt-in" by registering for this list). 

(http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml#_toc523422645)

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [email-masked]

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

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1312
*************************