With Regards To ICANN's February Announcement
by Mikki Barry
I thought I would save everyone a bit of time by translating the announcement:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm
paragraph by paragraph, into what it really means:
ICANN has failed. We wanted everyone to fall into line voluntarily, but they aren't doing so, despite all of the threats of governmental takeover.
After three years, the ccTLDs still won't give us money, the RIRs basically ignore us, and most others already understand that we are largely irrelevant unless we're going beyond our mandate to make policies that they like.
So, without doing what we threatened to do (government takeover), because you guys refused to get along with each other (yes, this is all YOUR fault), we are going to do what we threatened to do (government takeover) only worse. We are turning this over to governments AND staff.
We measure success based upon whether or not we can pay our Jones Day bills. Although many companies who thought they could get special favors from us (and in fact did) but now they have realized that we can't do much more for them since Congress and the DOC are breathing down our necks. They aren't giving us any more money.
In addition, the USG bashed Verisign over the head until they signed a contract with us. The Australians forced us to deal with the GAC, by providing funding which we count as a plus for ICANN even though we've always said that the GAC wasn't really a part of ICANN at all and just advisory (wink wink). Japan, Canada and the EU have put up with us, but that's just not enough.
So, ICANN has fallen short of expectations. We made certain to disallow those pesky users we were required to allow to participate under the White Paper, while simultaneously complaining we didn't get enough participation. Of course, the real lack of participation we were requiring is the ccTLDs (and their money). I must also complain in the same paragraph, about ICANN's pre-occupation with "process and participation." Those horrible distractions to our true mission caused us to actually spend money we could have given to Jones Day on such things as the MAC and the ALSC reports. The "big guys" won't give us any money because we still allow people to speak their minds. This distraction must be eliminated so we can really get things done.
So, like I said, without doing what we've been threatening (government takeover) we will implement government takeover.
---End of Translation -- Beginning of Commentary --
The rest of the paper was taken up with every possible excuse besides "Blame Canada." Like a corrupt French Ice Skating Judge, the excuse changes with the target of the minute. However, there have been absolutely hilarious charges made, specifically that ICANN had "too much process." Simultaneously, not enough process was claimed regarding governmental participation. While complaining about the complicated organizational structure, Stuart then goes on to say that ICANN needs to build "government-like institutional foundations." Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "government-like institutional foundations" the most fraught with Byzantine organizational structures, even greater than what ICANN is right now?
Sims, I mean Stuart Lynn goes on to say that if the people he's appointed can't find a consensus, none exists. Interesting to say while completely disregarding all previous consensus points that HAD been agreed upon prior even to the creation of ICANN. However, that notwithstanding, the at-large must be squashed so that they can focus on the "real work" that can likely only take place in secret without those pesky users and squabbling public policy types.
Astoundingly enough, Lynn "believes strongly in ICANN's core values of openness and participation" after just saying that the At Large must be crushed. Then he attacks that highly annoying reconsideration process as yet another distraction. The requests were "frivolous," the Review Panel adds to the "waste."
Lynn complains loudly about those horrible ccTLDs not wishing to pay the "appropriate share of the burden." The ccTLDs are likely the ONLY entities who truly understand that ICANN is irrelevant to their business models or their technical needs. Their example is one that should be followed. It is astounding that Lynn can be so blatantly blind to perhaps the truest reason for ICANN's financial shortfalls - namely bills from Jones Day. A close second is the cost of the ICANN world tours, at insanely expensive venues whose lack of facilities are then blamed as good reasons for further eliminating participation even via webcasts. Closely third are the expenses for Andrew McL to jet to foreign countries as ICANN spokesmodel. All travel, of course, is business class, all hotels five star, all meals highly expensive, etc,. It is obscenely ludicrous that they would then complain that the At Large is just too expensive.
Another quite interesting claim is that that pesky US Government and those pesky Americans will interfere with "long-term global stability." How ironic. Taiwan didn't decide to run their own root because of US Government participation. They did so because they did not wish to deal with ICANN's nonsensical regulations and rantings. The ccTLDs are not refusing to "play ball" with ICANN because of US Government participation, but instead because of ICANN's policies and desires for huge amounts of funding to pay Jones Day and ICANN's travel agents.
But again, the most ridiculous and laughable claim for the necessity of ICANN's "restructuring" to eliminate all of those pesky people and ideas is once again the boogieman of "alternate roots" and collapse of "essential infrastructure" with a weak ICANN. The very thought that non-technical bureaucrats are protecting the infrastructure of the Internet made me laugh so loudly that my dog became alarmed. The only technically inclined individuals who have even the semblance of a clue within ICANN are Karl Auerbach and Andrew Mueller-Maguhn (both ironically elected from that pesky At Large) and Vint Cerf who is wholly owned and operated by ISOC and Worldcom. Their new technical employee, Kent Crispin is the architect of the fatally flawed interface to the voting structure that is now blamed for improper results. Yet another fairy tale ending.
So to fix the part that is not broken and break the part that needs fixing, that government intervention we were all threatened with is now supposed to save the day. For only governments can really decide best who should be on the ICANN board. Amazing that it only took three years to figure this all out. And don't forget....never forget....that this is all (including the directive from Stuart Lynn) "bottom up" consensus (oh, except of course we must always remember that Jon Postel's process creation was not open or transparent... But that's not important right now except to justify ICANN's newly found closed, I mean open, opaque, I mean transparent method of springing ideas fully formed on all but the initiated and special (and definitely not pesky) Board members like some sort of Athena on acid.
As I paraphrase Tony Rutkowski, let's pull the life support, kiss them on the forehead, and watch ICANN expire with appropriate DNR orders. After all, anything else might be too "pesky."