final on Another Cohen ramble...

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com>


At 08:50 AM 11/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:

Permission is granted to forward and publish this response to Jonathan
Cohen. I have one request, that you forward me a copy of any URL that this
ends up at. Thanks.

> http://www.wired.com/news/rants/0,2350,56535,00.html

I would like to respond to Jonathan Cohen's totally irresponsible tirade
about the failure of ICANN and the resulting ICANN-bashing. There are a
number of factual errors in his world viewpoint.

1. ICANN isn't an experiment. It has used that term as a self-defense
mechanism against real-world accountability. It produces real-world policy
decisions which directly affect every domain name holder and indirectly
affect every Internet user. There's nothing experimental about it. It's a
cop-out to justify non-compliance with it's principle mission.

2. Historically, the United States was forced to step into the situation to
stop the gTLD-MoU from wreaking havoc to the Internet. This "Big and Bold"
move by the United States was to recognize the need for an accountable
corporation to provide technical management of the Internet's key
protocols, including IP addresses and domain names. Ironically, the same
people that were behind the failed gTLD-MoU are now behind ICANN. ICANN has
failed to fulfill the agenda that it was created to support, and instead
supports the same agenda as the gTLD-MoU. The White Paper that the United
States published as guidance has largely been ignored by ICANN. The
Internet Society, which was the driving force behind the gTLD-MoU, can
clearly be seen being paid off by ICANN (against far superior bids by
substantially more qualified groups) for it's prior "contributions" with a
TLD of it's own - .ORG.

3. Jon Postel's vision for ICANN was absolutely nothing like the circus
farce it has become. How do I know? I was one of the people that Jon
consulted in creating ICANN. And I was also part of a group called the Open
Root Server Confederation (ORSC) which attempted to bid on the original
ICANN contract. Unfortunately, the contract has never been open to public
bid. It was awarded, without a competitive review, to the IANA "function"
(Jon Postel's legacy) in Marina Del Ray in a short-sighted attempt to
provide minimum disruption to the Internet.

4. Karl Auerbach was duly elected, within ICANN's own election process, to
represent North America. And Mr Cohen obviously has a huge problem with
that. It's not a technicality, it's a reality. The people picked Mr
Auerbach fair and square. Does Mr Cohen's problem come from the fact Mr
Auerbach wants to be accountable to his Constituents, or is it because Mr
Auerbach simply recognizes his full duties as a director and isn't afraid -
like Mr Cohen is - to exercise that duty.

5. ICANN is structured so that the only voices that are heard are a small
group of people. Mr Cohen sates that "eloquent spokespeople from all the
Constituents that make up the Internet are clearly heard." Don't forget
there is no longer a forum for the Internet Community to contribute - the
@Large Membership has been disbanded. Not to mention the countless times
where the various committee recommendations to the Constituencies have been
ignored, whereby the Constituencies Council's recommendations are then
ignored by the ICANN board, whereby the ICANN board is totally ignored by
ICANN staff. These highly elitist statements and decisions show us that
99.9% of the Constituents and 100% of the Internet community are viewed as
totally inelegant and unworthy of contributing to ICANN. We have a clearly
defined Internet aristocracy and an unheard populace. To quote David
Holtzman: "If we're going to have a world government, I want a revolution
first."

6. I also must take issue with Mr Cohen's statement that "Privacy and
freedom of speech, are looked at differently from country to country and
ICANN must be very careful not to stray into Policy decisions on such
subjects that prefers one philosophy over another." What is missed here is
that the principles of Human Rights the same everywhere. The same ethical
treatment is required in one jurisdiction as another. ICANN has an open and
public policy of "looking the other way", not because of any established
policy, but because it remains in power by it's own abuse of the principles
of human rights over the Internet Community.

So my message to Jonathon Cohen is rather simple: Give me your shoes.

Best Regards,


Simon Higgs

--
"DNS needs stability and property rights for existing names and uses,
and therefore requires somebody who can manage, second, the DNS also
needs somebody with the ability to create revolutionary change and
expand the technology into international character sets,telephony
applications, and new TLDs, which will require someone who is
visionary and not afraid to turn the sacred cows of the International
Telecommunication Union and the Internet Society into hamburger if
they get in the way."
                                - Paul Mockapetris, January 23, 2001


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/