[ga] Veni on the Settlement

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

After an ISOC-NY meeting on local broadband
initiatives last night, I met with ICANN Board
director Veni Markovski who happened to be in town. 
He advised that his personal comments on the VeriSign
settlement are already posted to his blog.  Here they
are:

Now, there will be many questions, many pros and
contras, but for me the main question is that finally
this discussion is over. 

Here?s what I think about my vote and the agreement
itself. 

I think the agreement is a positive step forwards, as
it puts an end to a long-lasting tension, which was
driving ICANN away from its main job. I also think
it?s important to note that now the agreement needs to
be approved by the DoC, before it?s really enacted.
That?s additional step, which makes sure that
agreement by ICANN are taken in accordance with the
laws. 

I don?t believe ICANN integrity will be undermined by
this agreement. It is true that for some of the
US-companies this agreement means less profits, and
for some - more profits. But there?s no possibility to
have both parties right and happy. But, what is more
important - I don?t think the registrants will feel
difference in pricing. In some ways, it will actually
encourage competition - with other top-level domains
(TLDs), and hopefully - with the .us, which is not a
very popular TLD in the USA.

I think that the policy development in this case did
not happen the way it should have (now, some question
whether this was a policy development question). But I
don?t think it?s ICANN?s fault. I think it?s a failure
of the ICANN community, and the continuous processing
in which it has been involved for quite a while. I
told a number of times the ICANN community, during our
meetings with them - don?t just tell us the problems,
we know them. Suggest the solutions, participate in
their formation. That didn?t happen. Further, we never
heard from the ICANN community their conflicts of
interests, and we could never be sure when someone
speaks whose interests they represent. 

I don?t think ICANN is betraying the people who
genuinely supported ICANN throughout the years by
settling this case. I think that we took a very
difficult decision, but it?s the usual way - people
expect the Board to give them solutions, so that they
can criticize both them, and ICANN Board. I am already
used to this? 

I also think that the people we heard in the previous
months are the usual ICANN community - it?s not the
global internet community that ICANN is supposed to
protect and make sure the Internet runs for them, too.
We basically heard only the US-business, and the
businesses that deal with .com domains. There are
several explanations about it - a) the others are not
so noisy, b) the others don?t care, c) the others
agree with the a). 

I am not concerned about the budget that ICANN would /
might have. Actually the Board is the one to approve
the budget. I would urge the community to pay close
attention to the structure of the budget, and
participate actively in its formation. That?s the way
to deal with it, and make sure that if there is any
excess money, it should be used for projects in
developing countries. 

And I don?t think that the big achievement of this
agreement is the saving of USD Millions for
litigation, although it?s still a feature, not a bug.

The agreement is not a victory for VeriSign or for
ICANN, it?s a common sense in action. To blame ICANN
with the words, ?VeriSign wins? or ?it?s a victory for
VeriSign?, or ?ICANN lost? means not to have in mind
all aspects of the agreement but only one. That?s not
fair to ICANN, to ICANN Board, and to ICANN staff. 

I agree with Susan that we need to start to talk about
ICANN and its role in a changing environment -
although again I think this is probably one of the
wrong ways to do it - top-bottom, instead of bottom-up
process.

I fully agree with the following by her, ?Most
importantly, we will need to evaluate how ICANN should
be structured and should operate for the future, so
that crises of confidence like that created by this
proposed agreement can be avoided. We should take this
opportunity to engage together to make ICANN into a
?city on the hill? ­ a model of private
self-governance. This is the most pragmatic approach
available, and it is in the best interests of ICANN.?

I hope it?s a good day for the Internet, and I hope
that now it?s over, we?ll be able to focus again on
the important issues, which have been put on the
second stage by the urgent ones. 

P.S. After reading my notes again, and seeing some of
the comments on the vote, I need to make some edits;
instead of changing my notes above, I?d rather add
some here. 

My decision was not easy; it would have been much
easier to abstain or vote against it - I wouldn?t need
to explain anything, certain people would love me for
my position? And for sure, if I have been thinking of
running again for the Board this year, a negative vote
would have made my chances higher  I think though,
that the fact all of the people whose term expires
this year, have voted in favour of the agreement
should signal the critics that either none of us wants
to run again, or that we are taking our duty as
directors more seriously than people believed we were
able to. Because exactly that fact signals that we
were more free to take the decision, not having to
carry the burden of thinking, ?Oh, how are we going to
live with this until the end of my term.? And, by the
way, I don?t think this decision solves only the
litigation (regardless of my belief that even the bad
out-of-court agreement is better than the good court
verdict). It solves many problems, and the solution is
in the interest of the development of the Internet. 

But at the same time, knowing it would have been a
very popular vote, I have to admit I am not fighting
for glory, and certainly not for glory in the ICANN
environment. What I want from ICANN is the Internet to
run smoothly, the DNS to work, and to be able to get
an IP address for my servers. And for every user that
is on line.

However, every person around ICANN has their own
opinion on every issue discussed by the Board. And
everyone believes their opinion is the right one.
Some people blame the Board as if it is working in
conspiracy - regardless of the fact that there are 15
Board directors, some of them famous bloggers, with
active blogs, and no one has stopped a director from
publishing anything, afaik.

Some people claim that the Board follows staff
recommendations without challenging them.
And some people believe that ICANN is not needed at
all, and it should not exist.
I am not so sure all of the above is right.
Well, it has always been easier to criticize than to
send positive contribution to ICANN. Why not, I can
criticize ICANN on my own quite well! 

Note that I always use ?some? - because I don?t
believe all people around ICANN are thinking the same
way. 

In anycase, we?ll see soon whether this was a good day
for the Internet, or a death sentence for ICANN. 

http://www.foss.bg/blog/?p=32#more-32

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com