IP: Beyond the ICANN World View

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

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/