[ncdnhc-discuss] Important: Board action on .org divestiture

Tue Mar 19 08:44:20 CET 2002

Milton,

the Board fully considered the DNSO statement. I will speak for myself in
how I voted. The intention is to leave open those options that will
benefit .org registrants most, by providing the security that the registry
will be properly operated in a professional manner. As was clearly argued
(but I guess that you have not looked at any of the transcripts of the
session, nor the video recording) .org is already large (3M) and has to be
run at a high level of efficacy and efficiency.

There is also a perception that optimizing the operation may be at odds
with trying to obtain a surplus to apply to "good causes". This may in the
long run be opposed to plain, good operation in the service of the users.
"Grandfathering" not only means keeping a registry with the present
registrants, it also means providing as good service as possible to them.

The DNSO's insistence on "marketing" was severely attacked by Prof. Abril,
as it had already been questioned in previous fora. I disagree with your
statement that the DNSO document was non-controversial. Even after your
activity, our own James Love made clear some serious issues which directly
bear on the choice of good service and pricing over other considerations.

Once the RFP is out, I expect that we will see bids from all types of
organizations, non-profit or otherwise. I expressed my call to see
presented only honest proposals, ie in this context those in which a
non-profit is only formed or recruited as a "front" for a business. Maybe
this is only a wish.

Most other aspects of policy guidance from the DNSO have effect only on
the RFP itself or even later, in the decision process.

Our constituency should be most concerned about the following:

There are all kinds of possible conflict of interest in this field. Surely
YJ Park has already finally disclosed her long story of conflict here;
this constituency (and you, Milton, in particular) allowed her for months
to be working for a group that is vying for a bid on .org. Whether there
be profit or none involved, the fact of shaping policy on .org in the
Names Council and building a well-subsidized effort to bid, appear
clearly as a distortion of process. Now that she has made this full
disclosure, and we can openly ask her about its implications, it falls on
you, Milton, to tell the constituency where you stand.

Were your actions in shaping .org policy independent of the approaches you
received from .org bidders, or other interests you have developed in the
field?

Can our AdCom members make clear statements about this type of conflict in
each of their cases? Please remember that we have an ongoing discussion on
a resolution that was carried from the list to the physical meeting and
modified there, which addresses exactly this problem.

It seems to me that this type of conflict is of far wider and deeper reach
than your insistence on picking on Kent. BTW I will start action, and Kent
has also expressed his intention on doing so, to search for a policy on
conflict of interest for ICANN staff. But I'd rather see the problem of
understaffing solved than devoting unwarrranted efforts to nitpicking.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
=====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Milton Mueller wrote:

>
> This was sent to ICANN Board yesterday. So far I have
> received a response from only two Board members,
> Karl Auerbach and Amadeu Abril-Abril, both of whom
> expressed some sympathy for our concerns. Normally Vint
> Cerf is quite responsive, if only to acknowledge receipt
> and issue some noncommital response defending his
> actions - in this case his silence is interesting.
>
> =====
>
> Dr. Dr. Cerf:
> I have learned how the Board acted on the .org divestiture
> and am disappointed and even a little shocked. It appears
> that you decided not to follow the DNSO's unanimous
> recommendation that the ORG be divested to a non-profit
> registry representative of noncommercial Internet interests.
>
> Amazingly, this was the one part of the policy that was never
> controversial. It was supported by business users, IPR
> representatives, registrars and of course the noncommercial
> entities themselves.
>
> I spent about 8 months working on the .org Task Force
> and related activities. We followed the designated ICANN
> process to the letter. We achieved a real consensus, and
> a unanimous vote. Almost all of the public comments were
> favorable, and the few that were not did not provide any
> basis for deviating from the recommendation of a
> non-profit registry representative of noncommercial
> internet interests.
>
> There are serious issues of credibility and commitment here.
> If ICANN is to establish legitimacy and stability it must adhere
> to its own processes. Its decisions must be backed by careful
> documentation of their rationales (there is not, as far as I can
> tell, ANY reasoning or documentation behind your decision.)
> Above all, it must respect the work of the people
> who devote their time to making your processes work.
>
> Do you share that view?
>
> If so, can you explain to me why, after this result, anyone
> should take ICANN and its processes seriously and commit
> any time or money to them?
>
> Your argument, made during the Board meeting,
> that the DNSO offers only "advice," and that advice can
> be disregarded, is frankly insulting to the people who are
> required to spend thousands of dollars to maintain
> membership in DNSO and orders of magnitude more than
> that in donated time and materials.
>
> It is also legally incorrect. Please read the ICANN bylaws regarding
> the role of supporting  organizations.* Under the bottom-up model
> that Dr. Postel designed, policy directions are supposed to originate
> with supporting organizations and be passed up to the Board.
> If the Board disagrees with an element of the policy, it is
> supposed to return the policy to the supporting organization
> for modification. The consensus-development apparatus lies in
> the SOs. The Board is supposed to follow consensus not
> dictate it.
>
> Certainly the Board has the *power* to ignore its supporting
> organizations, but should it? If it does, why are they there?
>
> A decent respect for ICANN's own processes, a sense of public
> accountability, not to mention simple common sense, would
> dictate following a policy that took such a long time to develop
> and commanded such widespread support.
>
> I hope you have a good explanation for your actions in Accra.
> I look forward to your reply.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Former Names Council member for NCDNHC
> Former Chair, Names Council Task Force on .org
>
> * Supporting Organizations shall have "the primary responsibility for
> developing and recommending substantive policies regarding those
> matters falling within their specific responsibilities." ICANN bylaws,
>
> Article VI, Section 2(b).
>
> "Article VI, Section 2(f) If the Board declines to accept any
> recommendation of a Supporting Organization, it shall return the
> recommendation to the Supporting Organization for further consideration,
> along with a statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
> recommendation."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>