Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Director Sues ICANN for Access to Records
According to an EFF press release (press release mirror) today, Karl Auerbach (the North American elected representative to ICANN's board) filed suit (petition mirror) today against ICANN itself to obtain financial and other records that he has been seeking to obtain since December 2000. As a bit of background, according to general summaries that ICANN has released, it now spends about $6 million per year (for a job that used to be done by volunteers); roughly half of all the money it spends goes to the law firm of Jones Day.
ICANN management dragged its feet for nine months, then issued a new "policy" -- never brought before the Board for discussion or vote -- requiring Auerbach to sign a non-disclosure agreement that placed Auerbach's ability to discuss the records at the discretion of ICANN management.
Appears as though ICANN wants to take something that was apparently public record and turn it into private, proprietary information. Not really a smart thing to do after the request has been made.
"Here, take a look at our records. Oh, wait, you might use some of this against us? Never mind, sign this binding agreement so we can take care of our CYA initiative."
Randal Graves says: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class... Especially since I rule.
The internet is designed to route around problems, so why haven't we routed around ICANN yet?
ICANN was designed to give legitimacy to the way the net is run, and the only way that they could have done that was to spend money. As soon as money entered the picture politics followed. Get rid of both and start from scratch with a better designed and built system. One where democracy rules, where the law is applied equally to both big companies and the little guy.
Just a side point, what would it take to replace the 13+ root dns servers?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Went to a single law firm. Has ICANN been involved in 3 million dollars worth of litigation? I can understand that they may have use of a lawyer's service in their position but 3 million dollars worth?
Lots more questions then beg to be answered. How many lawyers was the money paying for. What did they do? Is the same law firm the one suggesting ICANN not release the financial documents? Are any of ICANNS managers benefitting from diverting so much money to the law firm?
Oh man people are going to want to know answers to all these things, while ICANN skitters around looking for something to scurry under to escape the terrible light.
I had asked the question before on ICANNs own forum: It seems to me difficulties are due to piss poor management and nothing to do with need for structural reform. For instance, why stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have you looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform.
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.