Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If what Dan says is true, then that indicates that the contract with
Verisign was inadequate and ICANN deserves criticism for failing to rein in
a powerful entity (with monopolistic tendencies) through clear and
enforceable clauses. It appears to me that ICANN has surrendered power and
autonomy to Verisign which now allows them to fly in the face of general
opinion and "do as they please".

How much longer must we tolerate this assumption that Verisign should have
some controlling right over huge areas of our world resource, as if the
system existed primarily for its own profit and aggrandisement, when in fact
this is a resource which should be run in the best interests of worldwide
users, with due attention afforded to their voice and opinion.

.com and .net domains (and their delivery) should simply belong to the
people who use them, and Verisign should be reduced to a process which
guarantees their operability, while ICANN should hugely enhance the
influence and rights of the actual people who use these domains and this
internet.

Sadly, at the same time that ICANN has been ass-kissing Verisign and
endowing it with largesse and loose magnanimous contracts, this discredited
Californian quango has also been diminishing the influence of the actual
people who use the net and its domains all over this world of ours - the
ordinary internet users - expelling the *elected* representatives of
ordinary users from their self-perpetuating Board.

And ICANN has a history of loose magnanimous Agreements granted to
friends... just look at the .info Agreement and how that was shot through
with flaws and invited abuse... and when even insiders abused the process
and agreements, ICANN watched, craven and irresponsible, ignored its
critics' questions, and still accredit cowboy operations unquestioningly,
even when shown to have ransacked ICANN's own process and agreements...

Loose agreements, friends who help friends, and a benign DoC who wants ICANN
to remain in place... in this context, the present publicity over Verisign
is simply a PR hiccup which needs to be jointly managed to some fudged
conclusion, so that "business as usual" can carry on regardless...

Dan says "ICANN cannot force Verisign to suspend their service"... lets put
it a little bit more clearly... ICANN enabled Versign to press forward with
this service (and with WLS etc etc)... they didn't have to accede so much
autonomy to Verisign or sign such a powerless contract... they chose to....

To this extent, it is ICANN more than Verisign who might be regarded as
culpable.

...

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Steinberg <synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Ga@Dnso. Org <ga@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension


> Joanna,
> The story might have legs but its going no where.  And its nice to sit
> in our armchairs and talk about penalties but just how on Earth are you
> going to impose them? I dont care if you want 5 days 90 days or 90 year
> suspensions.   For ICANN to impose a suspension they need some cluase in
> the contract that Verisign has breached in implementing Sitefinder.   Do
> you not think they would have acted by now had they something to work
> with? They have as much power to legally stop verisign's sitefinder as I
> have to stop you from talking about imposing penalties or suspensions.
> Now I can ask you niceley. I can reason with you. I can bluster. I can
> call you all sorts of names but at the end of the day... I cannot stop
> you from talking about suspensions.  And ICANN can not force Verisign to
> susspend their service.
>
> Worse, the sad fact is...anything  ICANN might try do to stop Verisign
> would cause ICANN itself to quickly face legal action.
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >This story has legs. It's today's lead in Technology News at the BBC,
where
> >the headline and ticker is: "Site finding system faces suspension"
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3129184.stm.
> >
> >Convening a committee of half a dozen Verisign appointees to deliberate
the
> >pros and cons while the system remains operational, is not going to fly
in
> >this climate. A 90 day Sitefinder suspension by the ICANN Board is in
order,
> >followed by a request to the SOs to develop a consensus based decision.
> >
> >Anybody up for convening a GNSO Task Force?
> >
> >Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>