[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

Wed Feb 26 01:10:59 UTC 2014

Steve,
thank you for responding. This was sent to Mike because the model I 
discuss was the model I discussed with Peter deBlanc in 2000. 
Question was: what is the ICANN value added. How much is it worth for ccTLDs?

You tell me that I am wrong in my premises, OK, then ...

At 00:48 26/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>Yes.  But "best interest of the corporation" includes meeting its 
>purpose of existence and its bylaws.  ICANN is a not for profit 
>organization.  It does not exist to maximize its income or profits.

I do not consider maiximisation but ICANN must pay its ever 
increasing bills and salaries.

> > , This puts it in competition with the internet community 
> (whatever this community may legally be) since ICANN receives no 
> money from users.
>
>This statement is simply wrong.

How are internet users contributing to ICANN? You know the rule: if 
ICANN works for free for me, I am the product. Why would I be your product?

If you do not sell me, if you do not sell to me, it means we are in 
competition somewhere. Economy is made that way.

>  It does not follow from anything and is not consistent with the 
> purpose or bylaws of ICANN.
>
> > Therefore; the ICANN mecanism obliges the Board to make money on 
> the members of the ICANN community (non-ccTLD registries and 
> registrars) without any consideration for the end users.
>
>This statement is also wrong.  It's a conclusion drawn from an 
>incorrect premise.

OK. Where does ICANN get its money from?. Not from users, not from 
Govs, not from taxes. Not from T-shirts. Only from registrars and registries?

> > The alibi to get that money is to organise the RSS that is 
> provided pro bono. This RSS making sens because the Internet is 
> supposed to have a single authoritative root file and ccTLDs are on 
> the ICANN root file what justfiies the GAC. An house of cards.
>
>ICANN runs one of the thirteen root server constellations.  ICANN 
>has no say in who runs any of the instances in the other twelve 
>constellations.

Good. But ICANN claims it is important to all of us because it runs 
the RSS. Bill documented that a root-server costs only $ 200. So, 
this is your investment. Les then $ 10,000 says the contract with the 
USG for the whole. Including desks and chairs.

>In ICANN's own constellation, the L-root, pretty much anyone who 
>signs up to participate is welcome to do so.

Perfect. And I suppose they do not pay you and you do not pay them?

> > Now, let assume another governance model where a group of three 
> voluntary people (so there is one active if one is sick and the 
> other on vacations) with two PCs, one in the RSS (Bill Manning has 
> documented that a root-server may cost $ 200) and the other with 
> excel and a mail agent. They keep a list of the TLD managers where 
> people can register and resolve domain names for $ 10 per annum. 
> They provide this list to ISPs and to anti-virus providers, to keep 
> people updated and protected. On the excel table they also maintain 
> from time to time a list of IPv6 beigning with the ISO 3166 numeric 
> codes that ccTLD can allocate in their country.
>
>This doesn't begin to deal with the myriad of real issues that have 
>to dealt with.

I am sure there is a myriad of issues, but which ones are actually in 
the Internet Community best interest. At a time the buzz was about 
the ICANN mission creep.  long time ago ... Now it is the myriad of missions.

Let take a very simple example. If the NTIA calls ICANN I am sure 
someone answers the phone. Then there is a discussion. Depending on 
the issue having been discussed there may be meetings, reports, 
works, mails, etc. all this takes time and has a cost. No doubt. But 
why would ICANN pick NTIA's calls in the first place? What is the 
good for the users?

etc. etc.

If we do not go down to the "unique root" of ICANN that is to 
"coordinate" (your words) the unisque root that the rest of the world 
would like you to help "cooperating" it, we cannot really understand 
the cons and pros of the model. If coordinating it costs more than 
cooperating it, either you must stop or yu ust bill the one which 
benefits from this coordination.

Frankly after 16 years I still do not know what is the real purpose 
of ICANN and if it is good or bad for the world. When you consider 
the number of times I wrote "ICANN" in my life I think there is a 
problem because we are many people and analysts with the same 
problem. I do not even ask you to be accountable, I would like just 
to understand why you think altruistic worth to spend time and efforts there?

What is the world's ROI on ICANN?
Sory to appear negative. But the ICANN/IANA globalization or its 
replacement by an MS enhanced cooperation in the best interests of 
the nations is the Sao Paulo topic, and in our best common user 
interest the topic of this list ICANN has created.

Cheers!

M G

>Steve
>
> >
> > What would actually be the difference in terms of cost, 
> reliability, surety, security, innovation capacity with the present situation?
> > This is probably a little ICANNoclast, but frankly this is a 
> question many consider and I never known how to answer.
> >
> > M G
> >
> >
> > At 18:58 25/02/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >> But unless there is a groundswell to start over, we have to deal 
> with the California based non-profit corporation we have and its 
> necessary adherence to California law and statute, and the body of 
> federal law within which California coexists. As well as its 
> fulfillment of contractual obligations it has entered into.
> >>
> >> From time to time, since the beginning, there have been many 
> efforts seeking delegation of the Board's powers and obligations in 
> search of better process and outcomes.  "Better," of course, being 
> a value laden term interpreted in different ways by different 
> folks.   To remember Harry Truman's phrase, "The buck stops" with 
> the Board members.   No matter how many supporting organizations, 
> committees, advisory bodies, panels and so forth are created in 
> search of wisdom, the powers can't be delegated.   The route of 
> appeal from a final Board decision is to a court of competent 
> jurisdiction in California.  It can be used.  Karl Auerbach 
> prevailed in his suit against the Board years ago.
> >>
> >> You observe that the views of the Board do not necessarily 
> reflect community consensus on an issue.  Consensus within the 
> Internet community is frequently an evanescent quality that shifts 
> frequently.  ICANN, through its bylaws and otherwise, has been 
> committed to adopting, as best it can, the consensus view on the 
> issues which come before the Board that are within the 
> organization's legitimate (and legal) purview.  But the Board's 
> decision carries legal finality, unless overturned as noted 
> above.  You and I have both witnessed occasions on which the 
> Board's decision was claimed by disaffected community members to 
> not have reflected consensus.  Given the nature of ICANN's mission 
> and role within the Internet, that is likely to always be the 
> case.  But things do have to get done and Board resolutions do have 
> to be voted on.  The Nominating Committee process and other 
> provisions of the Bylaws put individuals of substantial experience 
> and competence on the Board, and we entrust them with representing 
> our interests, even when we may not agree with the outcome.
> >>
> >> Contributions to this list have, with cogency and emotion, 
> called us to a higher standard of aspiration for ICANN 
> performance.  Surely this is a worthwhile goal.  But Jeanette 
> reminds us of the hazards of going beyond the rule of law, where 
> claims of legitimacy can easily abuse the rights of others.
> >>
> >> So let's use what we have.  It's grounded in the rule of law, 
> which despite many imperfections, helps us get along with each 
> other.  Most days, that is.
> >>
> >> - Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Regardless of whether it is constituency positions, or the 
> recommendation of the GNSO Council, these are only some of several 
> voices which the Board must consider in arriving at a consensus 
> ICANN policy position.
> >> >
> >> > When it comes to policy, shouldn't a "consensus ICANN policy 
> position" would reflect
> >> > the Internet community's views as best determined by the body 
> within ICANN with the
> >> > primary responsibility for DNS policy development?
> >> >
> >> > I can only hope that you are using "consensus ICANN policy 
> position" simply to note
> >> > the consensus view within the ICANN Board, and not actually 
> suggesting that the ICANN
> >> > Board indeed determines that which is the community's 
> _consensus_ via its consideration.
> >> >
> >> > Without clarity on whether the Board is supposed to be setting 
> policy versus measuring
> >> > support of the community with respect to the developed policy 
> versus assessing whether
> >> > the policy development process was followed, there will never 
> be ICANN accountability,
> >> > since one cannot meaningfully discuss whether ICANN (i.e. the 
> Board in your view) did
> >> > its job without first defining that job.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > /John
> >> >
> >> > Disclaimer:  My views alone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss