<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] I strongly support the comments made by Mr. Edward Hasbrouck
- To: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ALAC NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] I strongly support the comments made by Mr. Edward Hasbrouck
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:38:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Dr. Joe, Ed, and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> I concur fully. That said, be aware that if Dinese has her way
the GA will cease to exist by a bylaw</P>
<P>change that none of us have had the opertunity to vote upon as we also do
not have Board</P>
<P>representation. Also be aware that non-Registrants are not represented
by their vote or</P>
<P>even opertunity to do same either. Such does not reasonably reflect
transparency, openess or</P>
<P>adaquate accountability.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Now for a moment the "Constituency Model" approach which seems to be
high on </P>
<P>Denieses agenda as a means by which participation should be
"Channeled". Currently</P>
<P>as George has pointed out with emphrical refrences already, and has bee
repeatedly</P>
<P>discussed from time to time historically on the GA and other ICANN directed
or associated</P>
<P>forums, perspective members are ask to sign what ammounts to a "Loyality
Oath" which</P>
<P>was re-coined by Milton Mueller some time back, in order to be "Allowed" to
be a member</P>
<P>of that Constituency. Many of those Constituency charters subsequently
require the disclosure</P>
<P>of PII that has in the past, and could very well in the future for any would
be member expose them</P>
<P>to IDtheft, spam, Phishing, Pharming, and stalking as well. Such
charters are not well thought</P>
<P>out and by design violate individual liberties befor the fact just to openly
and Transparently</P>
<P>participate at all. How than can such a contrivance by design allow of
open and Transparent</P>
<P>participation and serve the public good?<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Joe Baptista
<BAPTISTA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Sep 25, 2009 7:47 PM <BR>To:
iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA"
<GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Worldwide <AT-LARGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ALAC NA Discuss <NA-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Governance List
<GOVERNANCE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga] I strongly support the comments
made by Mr. Edward Hasbrouck <BR><BR><BR>If ICANN followed it's own bylaws
scams like the one going on in German would not be happening.<BR><BR><A
href="http://bit.ly/o4Qz5";
target=_blank>http://bit.ly/o4Qz5</A><BR><BR>regards<BR>joe baptista<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR>From: <B
class=gmail_sendername>Edward Hasbrouck</B> <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></SPAN><BR>Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at
9:50 PM<BR>Subject: [ga] Failure to implement Bylaws<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>, <A
href="mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>ICANN has requested comments
by tomorrow, 25 September 2009, on proposed<BR>revisions to the ICANN Bylaws
for "Independent Review" of ICANN decisions:<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm";
target=_blank>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm</A><BR><BR>The
fundamental problem with ICANN's current Bylaws for independent review<BR>is
that those bylaws have never been properly implemented, and that --<BR>despite
multiple requests for independent review of ICANN decisions --
no<BR>independent review comporting with either the present or the
previous<BR>independent review Bylaws has ever been
conducted.<BR><BR>(According to a cursory statement on the ICMRegistry.Com Web
site, some<BR>sort of "hearing" is being conducted in Washington this week in
response<BR>to ICM Registry's request for independent review of an ICANN
decision.<BR>However, whatever is happening in that matter is not in accordance
with<BR>ICANN's Bylaws on independent review. First, the proceedings are
not<BR>being conducted with the maximum extent feasible of transparency,
as<BR>required by the Bylaws. Second, the independent review provider and
its<BR>procedures were not determined by ICANN in accordance with the
procedural<BR>rules of ICANN's bylaws for such policy decisions. Instead,
ICANN appears<BR>to have chosen the independent review provider and allowed it
to determine<BR>procedures -- which procedures themselves do not comport with
ICANN's<BR>Bylaws on transparency -- through completely improper secret, ex
parte<BR>negotiations with the potential independent review provider
while<BR>independent review requests with other parties were already
pending.)<BR><BR>Changing the bylaws on independent review will accomplish
nothing unless<BR>those bylaws are actually implemented (in accordance with,
inter alia, the<BR>other provisions of the Bylaws with respect to policy
development and<BR>decision-making procedures and transparency). ICANN
has done nothing to<BR>give reason for any confidence whatsoever that ICANN
will actually<BR>implement any accountability mechanisms, current or
revised.<BR><BR>As I have noted repeatedly in previous comments to ICANN, ICANN
has failed<BR>to implement any of the three accountability mechanisms required
by its<BR>current Bylaws. ICANN's Board of Directors has never held a
publicly<BR>disclosed vote to appoint or reappoint an Ombudsman. The
Reconsideration<BR>Committee of the Board of Directors has made decisions
which, by its own<BR>declaration, were based on matters not permitted to be a
basis for such<BR>decisions. And ICANN has never conducted a policy development
process to<BR>designate an independent review provider or develop or approve
procedures<BR>for independent review, just as it never appointed the members of
the<BR>independent review body provided for by its previous Bylaws.<BR><BR>(I
also note that the ICANN's request for comments is materially false
and<BR>misleading in its claim that, "ICANN has an Independent Review Process
in<BR>place, as established at Article IV, Section 3 (1) of the bylaws".
ICANN<BR>does not, in fact, have any process in place that has been
established in<BR>accordance with ICANN's accountability and transparency
Bylaws.)<BR><BR>ICANN has knowingly and wilfully persisted in this failure, in
flagrant<BR>violation of its own Bylaws. Members of ICANN's Board of Directors
have<BR>tolerated this ongoing and flagrant violation of the Bylaws.
Given<BR>ICANN's failure to establish any other means of accountability,
the only<BR>remaining mechanisms for calling ICANN to account are for the
United<BR>States Department of Commerce to revoke its contracts with ICANN
for<BR>breach of contract (in that ICANN has made contractual commitments to
the<BR>DOC to observe its Bylaws on accountability), and for the State
of<BR>California to revoke ICANN's corporate charter for persistent failure
to<BR>operate in accordance with its Bylaws, as required by that
charter.<BR><BR>Requests for independent review made under both the previous
and present<BR>independent review Bylaws remain pending and have not been acted
on by<BR>ICANN. The proposed revised independent review Bylaws are silent on
what<BR>action, if any, will ever be taken on these outstanding
requests.<BR><BR>Rather than revise the independent review Bylaws yet again,
ICANN should<BR>implement its existing Bylaws on accountability, including
independent<BR>review, by (1) appointing an Ombudsman, (2)compelling the
Reconsideration<BR>Committee to act in accordance with the Bylaws in new cases
and to<BR>properly reconsider those cases previous decided on impermissible
grounds,<BR>and (3) designating an Independent Review Provider, developing
procedures<BR>for independent review, and considering the backlog of
outstanding<BR>requests for independent review, all in accordance with the
procedural<BR>rules in the Bylaws for such decisions and actions, and the
general<BR>mandate of the Bylaws for the maximum extent feasible of
transparency in<BR>the operations of ICANN and its subsidiary
bodies.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Edward Hasbrouck<BR><FONT color=#888888><BR><A
href="mailto:edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank>edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><A
href="http://hasbrouck.org/icann";
target=_blank>http://hasbrouck.org/icann</A><BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Joe Baptista<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.publicroot.org";
target=_blank>www.publicroot.org</A><BR>PublicRoot
Consortium<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The
future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community
@large.<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------<BR> Office:
+1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)<BR> Fax: +1 (509)
479-0084<BR><BR>Personal: <A href="http://www.joebaptista.wordpress.com";
target=_blank>www.joebaptista.wordpress.com</A><BR></P>
<P>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over
294k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the
performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and
the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|