Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Beyond the ICANN World View
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:39:20 -0400
I would like to terminate this series with this but will, if Joe Simms or an ICANN rep want, publish a rebuttal. Dave ------ Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:10:34 -0700 (PDT) To: dave () farber net Cc: lauren () pfir org, neumann () pfir org Subject: Beyond the ICANN World View Dave, ICANN counsel Joe Sims' latest comments are I think quite revealing, more for the world view they portray than for their specifics. One specific of his that was certainly in error -- I am not now nor have I ever been a "she" -- but Joe's not the first to make that erroneous assumption. However, the fact that he in particular made that error is interesting. It suggests a concentration on the cloistered world of ICANN's struggles, rather than on the much broader real world of Internet issues and problems, where I've participated quite publicly and visibly for several decades. But then, it can be argued that a good lawyer needs to be focused on the needs of his client, not the problems and concerns of everyone else. Much of Joe's other commentary regarding my comments is puzzling and is reminiscent of the green spectacles that were locked on people's heads in the novel "The Wizard of Oz" -- if you look at everything through green lenses, everything is going to appear green. The same principle applies to a rose-tinted view of his client. But even where we're in agreement, Joe doesn't seem to want to admit it. He says that I make: "... the cosmic leap to assuming that things would be just fine if we would start all over." I'd appreciate being shown where in my writings or statements (either written solely by me or in concert with others), that such a concept is present. To the contrary, it has been my view (and I'm comfortable in saying that this is also the view of the other authors of our March letter -- Dave Farber and Peter G. Neumann) that there is *no* guarantee of success in starting over -- that there are definite risks involved. This has been stated explicitly numerous times whenever we've discussed this topic. But there is an enormous difference between the acceptable risks of starting fresh vs. the vast loss of faith in ICANN's abilities to deal appropriately with the issues. Trying to fix the latter at this point is throwing good money after bad -- the former at least presents the opportunity of creating purpose-built organizations to work on these problems, free of ICANN's vast baggage. Joe also suggests that I seem: "... to imagine that ICANN has accomplished nothing and that there is nothing there to build on ..." I'd urge folks to read the various papers themselves and draw their own conclusions (I've included some links below). We have gone out of our way to note that ICANN has had significant accomplishments, and until relatively recently we publicly expressed the view that ICANN might properly have a continuing role in Internet affairs. Our belief has been that ICANN's problems are significantly the result of their history and the convoluted path that the Internet (and ICANN) have taken. We have not (unlike some others) blamed individuals for ICANN's problems, but rather believe that ICANN's problems are structural and to some extent unavoidable given the path leading up to this point. But however we got here, the bottom line is that ICANN is no longer the appropriate forum to deal with these important matters. ICANN has become a continuing and growing part of the problems, not of the solutions. Joe asserts that we (Dave, Peter, and I) have not been active in the detailed ongoing affairs of ICANN until we started taking an evolving critical stance regarding the organization. We have spent many years working to solve Internet-related problems -- security, privacy, and a range of other issues involving both the nuts and bolts of the Internet and its effects on people and society. It is our perception that ICANN has become increasingly oblivious (except in terms of defensive reactions) to input from persons beyond its "inner circle" of trusted friends. For example, Dave's many attempts to offer suggestions, guidance, or assistance to ICANN have simply been ignored. It was with some considerable reluctance that we found ourselves being pulled into the ICANN controversies, with all of their attendant emotion and bad blood. But the deterioration of the situation became increasingly rapid, and it was made clear to us that our perspective on these issues was being widely solicited and could be of some value. Joe incorrectly assumes that our March letter did not elicit a wellspring of support. In fact, the reaction was extremely positive, though we did not feel it appropriate to run around tooting horns about this fact. Of more concern was the sense of deep resignation we saw in many responses. Agreement with our views is widespread, but there is also an undercurrent of fear expressed that no matter what anybody tried to do, the entrenched powers would not permit anyone other than ICANN to rule the roost, and that the end result would be many of the bright possibilities of the Internet vanishing inexorably down a bottomless rathole. Those fears may or may not prove to be correct. That is ultimately up to the users of the Internet to determine -- humanity around the world. It is *not* the exclusive domain of ICANN or the entrenched interests which represent its primary support. To those who say that there is only One True Way and That Way is ICANN, I will but point to history, which teaches us that there are always alternatives, and that no person or organization is forever or irreplaceable. Up until now, the stakeholders in the Internet arena have been faced with the unpalatable Hobson's choice of dealing either with a deteriorating ICANN or accepting potentially draconian government controls. We believe that a much more representative, fair, beneficial, and productive third choice can be created, if Internet users around the world have the will to do so. It's time for real solutions. It's time to move beyond ICANN. [1] PFIR Statement on Internet Policies, Regulations, and Control http://www.pfir.org/statements/policies [2] PFIR Proposal for a Representative Global Internet Policy Organization http://www.pfir.org/statements/proposal [3] URIICA Announcement http://www.uriica.org/announcement [4] PFIR Declaration of Principles http://www.pfir.org/principles [5] Overcoming ICANN: Forging Better Paths for the Internet http://www.pfir.org/statements/icann --Lauren-- (Mr.!) Lauren Weinstein lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () privacyforum org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ------ End of Forwarded Message For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- IP: Beyond the ICANN World View Dave Farber (Jun 17)