Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Seperation sounds great Karl but that ain't in the green and white papers.

The green and white papers are not binding.  If they were, ICANN would be
obligated to have a real public component.

In addition, the Dept. of Commerce has, despite questions from Congress,
the GAO, academics, and others, failed to demonstrate that it has the
legal authority to enter into these specific contracts that require ICANN
to do these specific things.  And under the US system of laws, if an 
administrative agency doesn't have a source of authority, it doesn't get 
authority simply by prentending that it does.

It isn't useful to constrain the possibilities by creating an anchor that 
doesn't really exist.

> Furthermore if techies and pollywogs don't work together you get a CIA/FBI 
> debacle. One hand is hitting while the other plays footsie.  Plus you 
> further our divides of technical/developing communities-- bla bla bla.

Nearly everything that ICANN has done has not one whit of technical
material - the UDRP, the system of UDRP providers, the TLD business
regulations (e.g. 10 year upper limit on registrations), etc - all these
are devoid of any technical component.  And much of, and my my measure,
the vast majority of, the technical community has responded in kind by
giving ICANN what amounts to a "Braveheart" salute.
 
> If you in your fancy seat at board hearings does not stand up for the 
> dotcommoner policies who does?

Everyone, everywhere needs to express his/her opinion to his/her national
legislators.  The US Senate is but one half of one legislature of one
nation.

		--karl--