Re: [ga] Sorry, ... we can't discuss this in public

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Thank you for your commentary.  I have been frustrated
by the fact that the really important issues
pertaining to the management of the DNS haven't become
the subject of public debate... for example, the issue
of presumptive-renewal-in-perpertuity of registry
contracts.  

It strikes me as antithetical to the principle of
promoting competition, that a registry can be granted
what amounts to perpetual management rights with
built-in clauses that further grant the right to raise
prices by fixed amounts.  This kind of stability we
don't need.

I would rather have the stability ensured by a
competitive bidding process that not only selects a
qualified applicant but that also results in lower
prices, not higher.

Yet this issue, among others, is not debated within
the GNSO Council, nor within the constituency
discussion lists, nor on any other public venue within
the ICANN sphere (such as the ALAC list).

Instead, ICANN Staff drafts contracts according to
their own insular view of things and invariably has
these contracts ratified by the Board without even a
modicum of public discussion.

ICANN's has developed a corridor culture that has
replaced open debate and discussion with private
deal-making.  This does not bode well for the
Internet.






 




--- Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> To be fair to Vint, I have always found him
> responsive... I don't agree with
> all his views and I think he can be methodically
> 'vague' a lot of the time,
> but at least he does reply.
> 
> In contrast, Paul Twomey - who arrived at ICANN
> proclaiming the need for
> greater openness and responsiveness - has never once
> replied to a single
> e-mail I have sent him (and I've probably sent him
> around 20). Call me
> old-fashioned but here in the UK we would regard
> that as just plain
> discourteous. Even a simple acknowledgment of
> receipt would be something.
> 
> But Vint almost always replies to me, and that has
> meant I am more prepared
> to listen to him and at least think through his
> comments and opinions - he
> does not run away from open dialogue.
> 
> Equally I think Michael Palage has been open to
> dialogue on various
> occasions.
> 
> But I would agree that, institutionally, ICANN's
> approach to dialogue has
> been disgraceful, amounting to a deliberate policy
> of keeping difficult or
> dissenting voices at arm's length from their
> processes.
> 
> That is the whole reason for the creation of ALAC:
> to keep (awkward)
> individual internet users at arms length by banning
> them from membership,
> and marginalising the challenge of the At Large,
> allowing its forums to
> become graveyards. ALAC was created to project a
> semblance of user
> involvement, while locking individual users out of
> its processes. The
> result: disenchantment and a moribund shell of the
> real At Large.
> 
> It was the same with the development and processes
> of the New TLDs
> Evaluation run by Sebastian Bachollet: there was no
> open forum during the
> production of his report, no posting of views,
> timescales and developments.
> Just a "closed" receipt of opinions from selected
> individuals and months
> later... plonk... the report was presented. People
> were simply locked out -
> prevented from developing and discussing ideas in
> any ICANN webspace during
> the drafting of the report.
> 
> To illustrate Danny's point further, a while back I
> posted some comments on
> the gTLD constituency forum (now dead). I was
> raising relevant questions
> about the way ICANN's Agreements with the registries
> had been flouted with
> impunity in a number of cases. I'd already raised
> the same issues with Dan
> Halloran (who had responsibility for ICANN's
> interface with the DNS industry
> at the time) but in a period of over 2 years, and
> despite repeated requests,
> he never so much as acknowledged my mail. I hoped
> for discussion on the gTLD
> forum.
> 
> I received this reply from the head of one of the
> Registries:
> 
> "Richard,
> 
> This message is only intended for you. Your message
> is exactly what scares
> the other members of the constituency away from
> wanting such an open list.
> Unfortunately, your gripes about the activities of
> .biz or .info it is not a
> 'constituency issue.'...  I am trying to make a
> difference here and it
> becomes impossible with messages like yours.
> 
> Think about it, why would you join a debate when you
> know that no matter
> what you say, no matter what you do, right or wrong,
> you will get bashed by
> the public.
> 
> As a prison warden yourself, let me give you an
> analogy.  Would you get into
> a prison cell with a prisoner that you know would
> beat the crap out of you
> once you took a step inside (even if you were the
> nicest of all wardens and
> you tried to do everything that you believed was
> right).  The answer is I
> would think not.
> 
> Same concept here."
> 
> I think Danny Younger is correct in his analysis
> that public comment and,
> even more so, a public constituency of registrants
> or internet users, is
> something that ICANN fears. It's all about
> "control". The elected
> representatives of the At Large were expelled from
> the ICANN Board for just
> that reason, in my opinion: because they presented
> the ICANN establishment
> with something which was hard to manage - the
> concept of divergent views and
> open and responsive dialogue.
> 
> Paul Twomey said he wanted more dialogue and greater
> responsiveness.
> 
> He has never replied to a single mail I've sent him.
> 
> Work it out for yourself...
> 
> Yrs,
> 
> Richard Henderson
> www.atlarge.org
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com