Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wasn't surprised by the "support" I heard. Commerce owns the ICANN/ IANA 
relationship and I doubt we'll hear Fiona admit that their creation has serious 
flaws. Pritz kept stating that this was a consensus decision. Jaffe kept saying 
it wasn't. For Commerce to make strong statements, other than on the 
multi-stakeholder model itself would be tantamount to admitting either no 
consensus exists or ICANN makes poor decisions.

I was especially impressed by the "thicker WHOIS" references and the "big Draft 
Applicant Guidebook". With an even bigger book and yet thicker or perhaps 
thickest WHOIS, all the issues would melt away.

>From my perspective, the testimony highlighted ICANN's lack of understanding 
>for any reasonable definition of consensus.

On Dec 8, 2011, at 12:32 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> While generally agreeing, I thought there was one surprise -- how soft the 
> NTIA's statement was vis-à-vis ICANN and the concerns raised by new gTLDs, 
> and how little heat they got from Senators concerned about the scope and 
> details of new gTLDs. 
> 
> Toward the end, when Jaffe (ANA) quoted the economist's letter just sent to 
> DOC that called on it to block unlimited gTLDs and only allow additions to 
> the root of new gTLDs that had proven they added value and served public 
> interest, Fiona Alexander responded to a question as to whether DOC could do 
> that by replying that it wasn't DOC's job to replace ICANN, and generally 
> emphasizing that the first addition to the root won't be until January 2013 
> and that NTIA will work with FTC, law enforcement and the GAC to monitor and 
> improve program over time.
> 
> So, all in all, at this hearing at least NTIA was an ICANN defender generally 
> and of the multi-stakeholder process that developed the new gTLD program in 
> particular. I would venture that signals that ICANN will be re-awarded the 
> IANA contract (not a huge surprise) and that its new conditions won't be as 
> tough as they might be.
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:41 AM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Cc: Michael D. Palage; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mike 
> Roberts; bc - GNSO list
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> 
> Predictable statements, predictable replies.
> 
> On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:00 AM, "Phil Corwin" 
> <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> Hearing started 10:45 and will end at 11:50 – not a whole lot of time for 
> questioning.
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
> 
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:26 AM
> To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Smith, Bill'; 
> mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Mike Roberts'; 'bc - GNSO list'
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> 
> They were delayed by an hour
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]> On 
> Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: Smith, Bill; mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike Roberts; bc - GNSO list
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> 
> Is this hearing being webcast?
> 
> Berard
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
> From: "Smith, Bill" 
> <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thu, December 08, 2011 5:58 am
> To: "mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, bc - 
> GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> 
> I've always maintained that it is easy to tell when you have consensus, for 
> any reasonable definition of consensus. Given the continued disagreement, 
> discussion, and debate regarding new gTLDs, it doesn't appear that we have 
> consensus. If we did, I believe we'd see more head nodding and much less 
> talking. Even here in the BC, we have discussed and submitted suggestions for 
> "improvement" to the new system.
> 
> That's not a consensus agreement but something more like what was described 
> in an earlier message that went something like this; if new gTLDs are a fait 
> a complit, it's better that we help eliminate the worst aspects and improve 
> it as best we can. That's fatalism, not consensus.
> 
> While ICANN claims to be a bottoms-up, consensus-based, multi-stakeholder 
> organization, it has yet to navigate the difficult waters of actually become 
> the organization it professes to be. In terms of consensus, as far as I know 
> a simple majority in each of ICANN's constituencies would be sufficient to 
> declare consensus, by a strict definition, on any issue at the GNSO Council. 
> The vote would be unanimous.
> 
> So if our definition of consensus is a simple majority of those voting, ICANN 
> is consensus-based. But if our definition is closer to unanimity, or lack of 
> sustained, substantial objection by more than an insignificant minority, we 
> don't have a consensus decision.
> 
> I'd be hard-pressed to sit before Congress and declare that we have reached 
> consensus.
> 
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:37 PM, 
> "icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I disagree with your assessment of community support for the program. 
>> There was a supermajority vote which approved the new TLD principles, 
>> including support of the BC and IPC, because we believe that business 
>> users of the DNS would be better off with more domain name choices, 
>> more registration service providers, and IDN TLDs, . The ICANN Board 
>> was nearly unanimous in approving the current implementation plan. The 
>> BC is still in favor of new TLDs, even if we have some reservations 
>> about some of the implementation details. There is broad community 
>> support for them, even if there also remains some broad opposition 
>> from some business/IP groups who are noisily repeating some of the 
>> arguments that have been made by the BC and others repeatedly for years.
>> 
>> So, I am not clear about what you would like the BC to say publicly at 
>> this point, perhaps you could circulate a draft?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:38 PM
>> To: bc - GNSO list
>> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
>> 
>> 
>> Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling 
>> that ICANN is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position 
>> from which it may not recover.
>> 
>> I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue 
>> Mosque in Istanbul. Worth a trip if you haven't seen it.
>> 
>> After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down 
>> the peninsula and ravaged the city. So walls were built. Then sieges 
>> were put in place and folks ran out of water. So at great expense the 
>> cistern was dug and covered over. Then longer sieges, etc. The invaders 
>> prevailed.
>> 
>> The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of 
>> building walls thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day.
>> 
>> The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to 
>> cover every possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new 
>> TLDs. And doesn't succeed.
>> 
>> Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple 
>> relationships to ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, 
>> the core rationale for our constituency is to represent business users 
>> of the Domain Name System. Setting aside IDNs, which have their own 
>> rationale, I haven't seen any enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and 
>> most of us have been opposed but willing to work on the details with 
>> ICANN because that seemed better than letting it happen without any 
>> input from us. What we have gotten for our trouble is Kurt claiming in 
>> his testimony that there is broad community support for new TLDs. That has 
>> never been the case.
>> 
>> The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program 
>> has produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense, 
>> including more than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of 
>> whack. It's time for us to acknowledge this, and say so publicly.
>> 
>> - Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> ________________________________
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4067 - Release Date: 12/08/11
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4067 - Release Date: 12/08/11