RE: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Part I

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:

> Because I can't believe, not even for a moment, that people like Roeland
> Meyer, Mikki Barry, Ellen Rony, Karl Auerbach, and so on, and so forth, are
> giving up.

Roberto, 

I hope you will take the time to read the following, and offer 
the perceptions I have gained based on my experience in this process some
consideration. Due to the length, I am splitting it into two posts. Many
of the viewpoints expressed aren't new, however if you are really
laboring under the intense disbelief you profess, these posts should serve
to offer a great deal of insight as to the lack of enthusiasm you are
witnessing. 

First, I don't believe any of the aforementioned people are "giving up." I
am certainly not "giving up." But in the whole scheme of things, an
individual has finite resources. Whether it be time, energy, or money, a
person need to choose where and how to expend their energy to realize
maximum benefit.

Being as generous as I am able, I find only a extremely minute possibility
that the current ICANN abomination is a productive expenditure of any such
resource by any and all of those who wished, hoped, worked so tirelessly,
in such good faith, for so long and often at personal expense to be a
part of the realization of the open, inclusive, representative "technical
coordination body" that ICANN was supposed to be. 

This in no way diminishes the value of their efforts. I am very grateful
to have met and to continue to have the opportunity to interact with such
a large group of intelligent, articulate individuals who sincerely have
worked towards a truly community-based organization. 

Rather, the failure to create such an entity serves as an indicator that
there little real chance of success. Not due to a lack of effort, but
rather because those striving for such an entity operated honestly and in
good faith, while a handful of individuals and organizations have not,
choosing instead to treat openness and honesty as a weakness to be
exploited in their efforts to capture and control the organization for
their own petty benefit.

Dave Farber made a statement to myself and Christopher Ambler at the IFWP
meeting in Singapore, a statement regarding the IFWP which initially I did
not believe. I quickly learned however just how accurate that statement
was, and the complete applicablity it has to ICANN then and now. That
statement was: "This is all window dressing." 

Would you like possible reasons for the silence? Try any or all of the
following:

  a) The empowerment of an unelected, interim board whose orgins have
     never been adequately described or detailed (a handful of
     contrary proclamations by ICANN supporters who either were involved
     in the process or stand to gain from the current power structure 
     nonwithstanding.)
    
  b) A board comprised almost solely of representatives of
     large commercial interests who lack either technical experience in
     these issues or experience in the formation and operation of 
     *any* non-profit organization, let alone one with the scope
     and mandate of ICANN.

  c) An extremely biased, arrogant, demeaning interim CEO who played a
     very personal and deliberate role in helping to destroy the only
     viable chance for a truly representative process to create ICANN, a 
     role he has benefitted from financially and career-wise.
 
     In a stunning display of duplicity, as an IFWP steering-committe
     member and as a representative of an educational facility, he very
     voiceferously condemed a proposed IFWP wrap-up meeting while already
     having been approached by forces not wishing to see such a meeting
     occur who offered him a position as interim CEO of ICANN. At no time
     did he reveal the substantial and compelling conflict of interest as
     he was operating under.

     Further, now we are witnessing moves by Mr. Roberts to gift the
     educational institution he previously worked for with complete
     control of ".edu" without discussion or any discernable desire
     expressed by participants. How very ethical.

     Any potential bias on my part regarding the substantive issues of the
     IFWP wrap-up meeting aside, is it generally acceptable to have
     leadership in an organization, especially one of this nature, that
     lacks the modicum of conscience required to compel them to
     reveal a significant and lucrative conflict of interest when
     condemning potential actions that might remove those benefits? 

     To me, such actions reveal a person without honor, scruples, and 
     lacking basic decency. In no event should someone so lacking in
     character be placed in a leadership position by anyone or any group
     with any sense of decency themselves. While perhaps not explicitly
     directed to do so by those who put him in power, such reprehensible
     behaviour shouldn't then be rewarded, as was done. His actions, and
     the actions of the unelected who put him in place regardless,
     have only served to tarnish the already questionable image of ICANN
     further.

  d) The long-term refusal of the board to conduct its board meetings
     and as much business as possible in full public view despite the
     overwhelming number of calls by participants to do so. 

     These meetings have been forced open not as a result of the board 
     listening and acting on the wishes of the majority of participants
     who have expressed an opinion on the matter, as it should, but rather
     only under heavy pressure from the DoC&Congressional representatives
     to do so.

  e) The same unelected, interim board immediately making an extremely
     large number of sweeping, fundamental changes to it's founding
     documents, procedures and operations seemingly at whim, at all
     times claiming "consensus" of the community it purportedly represents
     while in the vast majority of cases there is no indication whatsoever
     of or demonstrable "consensus" to be had for what experience has
     shown are in fact fait' accompli modifications. 

     The alterations by the unelected have served to nearly eliminate any
     possibility of:

       1) An organization that respected its original mandate as merely 
          a "technical coordination" body.

       2) An internet-user representative organization

       3) A reasonable & proper set of checks & balances against abuses. 

       4) Justification by demonstrable "consensus", and most importantly
          RESPONSIBILITY for any actions taken.             

  f) The continued employment of Jones Day, whose client list reads like a
     "whose who" of Fortune 500 companies, in the formation of a
     *non-profit* organization without consultation of the "community"
     ICANN is obstensibly representing, or any competitive service
     procurement process. 

     As a result, ICANN is almost completely beholden to Jones Day, as
     they are ICANNs single largest creditor with a debt incurred
     in excess of half a million dollars, a debt which Jones Day willingly
     allowed to accumulate, and one which the ICANN board doubtlessly
     feels obligated to show their appreciation for by continued use.

  g) The initial, continued, and seemingly complete willingness by the
     Board to rely on advice from Jones Day's attorneys in completely
     twisting the founding documents, procedures, and operations of ICANN
     which have eliminated any chance of a community-based and  
     representative organization in the effort to insulate ICANN 
     from responsbility for its actions. It is hard to find fault with
     Jones Day for this, as they are charged with representing 
     the best interests of their client, which is best done by minimizing
     potential exposure and liability, however the board members
     have a greater responsibility. 

     My personal belief is that a thorough investigation will reveal that
     contrary to mandates to the reverse and the claims of certain parties
     members that changes were driven by some mythical and undemonstrable
     "consensus", Joe Sims and other Jones Day staff are in fact the
     source of "consensus" for many of the sweeping changes that have
     been made. 

  h) The (offering some the benefit of the doubt,) simple ignorance of
     some decision-making parties within ICANN that the cover-up
     regarding "consesus" is occuring whether due to:

         1) Apathy stemming from a view of ICANN primarily as a vehicle to
            improve their careers

         2) An unquestioning belief of the summations, opinions and
            statements of ICANN board members and staff

         3) A complete unwillingness to try(despite some warts,) 
            to participate in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY in online discussions
            that have been occuring for some time. 


     It is the Internet and its users these individuals stand to affect,
     yet some refuse to use the medium in order to gain a meaningful
     appreciation and details of the views of the wide variety of
     participants. 

 
  i) The poor noticing of proposed changes, changes made with such
     rapidity it has rendered offering detailed, well thought-out and/or
     vetted(in the case of organizational representitives) comments on the
     large number of changes ICANN has been making near impossible. 

  j) No indication that the board has read or considered individual
     comments sent via it's defined mechanisms. Instead, on *very* rare
     occasion we are graced with a terse response from Esther Dyson to 
     a post. These posts are rarely helpful.

     Is dedicating time in crafting articulate, well-considered 
     comments on a moments notice in response to a constant barrage of
     proposed changes and  actions when it is evident that they aren't
     being read and/or taken seriously an effective use of ones time?

  k) Flagrant violations of the bylaws on more than one occasion. In
     at least one case both the CEO and ICANN counsel were present. 

  l) The direction from the unelected, interim board to an entirely
     incomplete DNSO, and even when completed, one that is 
     completely devoid in representation of individuals, to form
     extremely short-cycled Working Groups for the purpose of making
     recommendations regarding very complex and substantial issues. These
     issues included instituting mandatory arbitration of domain disputes,
     which besides being explicitly mentioned in the White Paper as
     something ICANN should *not* be engaging in, will have profound and
     far-reaching effects on the rights of individual domain name holders.
     This is done when there is no indication of the need or demand by the
     community at large for such ICANN-dictated clauses, especially
     given the lack of input of those who stand to be most affected.

  m) The failing of the Board to work in good faith on any sort of defined
     voting mechanism despite ample time, diligent work and recommendations of
     the MAC.

  n) The shams called and publicized as "elections" that have been held,
     "electing" the Names Council, and the subsequent selection(I don't
     believe this is a much more appropriate term) of additional
     board members by that Council. Anyone not physically present at 
     the meetings was afforded no opportunity to "vote" for any of these
     people, restricting voting to the few who have been able to afford
     to engage in the ICANN world tour, which again by and large are
     representatives of businesses.  

  o) The presence of bylaws giving the Names Council the power to select 
     the chair of the General Assembly, rather than allowing the 
     GA to self-organize, and self-elect as all other constituencies have
     done. 

I'd say that the majority of the board should be ashamed in helping to
create what ICANN has become, through greed, deliberate deception, apathy
or ignorance, but it has become obvious that any/and or all will not read
this, as they have utterly failed to read, consider and respond to
the vast quantity of substantative discussion and differing opinions on
the whole range of subjects past discussions have involved, including the
purpose of ICANN, the issues which it is to address, and how *we* as a
community were supposed to go about doing so. 

Please, don't confuse silence with apathy or having "given up." While I
can't speak for anyone but myself, I believe you will find that some
others have recognized that their worst fears have been realized. The
entire ICANN structure is a complete sham, where the few procedures in
place obstensibly designed to engender input in reality serve no purposes
other than to distract, engage, and wear down people by employing
extremely short and demanding schedules in which their time and energy is
consumed. These procedures culiminate in the delivery of mostly
pre-determined decisions and actions. Approaching the "input" process
in this fashion  offers a number of advantages as it quickly wears down
most participants, and offers the added benefit of being able to
misrepresent their participation as evidence that ICANN is open,
representative, and that they are listening.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.