Future of .org is to be decided soon

[Mark C. Langston]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 02:00:02PM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
> 
> * BayLISA is a stakeholder in the decision, as baylisa.org stands to be
>   directly affected by any decisions made in this matter.

ICANN defines "stakeholder" in a very interesting manner.  For example,
individuals who hold domain names are not stakeholders.  It's not
entirely clear based on ICANN's actions that not-for-profits are
stakeholders, either.  In fact, ICANN's been acting recently as
though the RIR's aren't stakeholders.

> 
> Is this an issue about which BayLISA (as an organization) is permitted
> to have and express an opinion?  If so, shall we?
>

As an organization, BayLISA would be entitled to membership in the
Non-Commercial Domain Name Owners Constituency (NCDNHC) of the Domain
Name Service Organization (DNSO) of ICANN.  Bear in mind, however,
that the NCDNHC is in jeopardy of losing its voting privileges within
the DNSO for inability to pay the tithes^H^H^H^H^H^Hfees that the
Names Council (NC) of the DNSO requires of each Constituency.  Also
bear in mind that ICANN often acts unilaterally, without (or in
contradiction to) the input of the DNSO and its member constituencies
(all of whom, save the DNSO, have a direct financial stake in
domain name registration policy).

ICANN is also currently undergoing a great deal of turmoil, moreso
than is usual for the body, which has been controversial from the
beginning.  The EFF has come out against current ICANN reorganization,
several members of Congress have called for strong investigation of
ICANN and its practices.  The EFF is assisting the publicly-elected
North American board member in suing the board for denying him the
ability to execute his fiduciary responsibility, and ICANN has
moved to eliminate all further public elections, opting instead
to hand-pick its board members.  The .org proposals are in jeopardy,
as several Board members have vested financial interest in the
organizations making the proposals, and have yet to recuse themselves.
Even so, recent actions in the DNSO regarding the last round of
TLD proposals demonstrated that, even in recusal, the board
members will continue to control debate, speak for or against
proposals, and work actively in the selection process (which 
is opaque).

I'd recommend BayLISA steer clear, as an organization.  Particularly
if it cannot afford to send representatives to the semi-regular meetings
ICANN holds, in far-off locales (Melbourne, Stockholm, Montevideo,
Accra, Bucharest, Shanghai).  No decisions of any import are made in any
forum other than the in-person meetings, and ICANN has repeatedly failed
in its mandate to provide open participation in these meetings by taking
advantage of existing technology.  The few times they've tried, they've
opted to use proprietary codecs using Windows-only software.  They
tried IRC once, and -- realizing they couldn't control the participants
-- gave up on it.  ICANN operates more like a star chamber than the
NewCo described in the White Paper.


 
> (In the mean time, I encourage BayLISA members to read proposals and
> lobby for those that they believe will be best for the community.)
> 

ICANN has long since demonstrated that they are uninterested and
unconcerned with public input.  They've systematically ignored
the requirements put forth in the White Paper, and even those in
the Dept. of Commerce MoU.  They manufacture consensus from the
top down, and many insiders believe the .org selection to be a
fait accompli.

-- 
Mark C. Langston                         Sr. Systems Administrator
mark at bitshift.org                                  Project Phoenix
Systems & Network Admin                             SETI Institute
http://www.bitshift.org                              mark at seti.org