Slashdot Mirror
ICANN's Time Is Up, According To John Gilmore
EyesWideOpen writes: "Salon has a lengthy interview with Cygnus Software co-founder John Gilmore about why he feels it's time for ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, to go. Gilmore, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is currently helping to fund a lawsuit filed by ICANN director Karl Auerbach against ICANN. ICANN has denied Gilmore access to its financial information, providing the basis for the lawsuit. Gilmore states: 'I believe it's because there is information in there about how ICANN has misused its money, and/or has favored people who lent or gave it money.'"
Just a minor correction. It's not Gilmore who can't see the books that's the issue, rather that Karl Auerbach (the NA elected representative) can't see the books. Check out Karl's saga at http://www.cavebear.com .
In Australia we used to have the benevolent dictatorship of Robert Elz. He was the instigator of the .au domain until he was thrown out by the ICANN lap dog that is auDA. There was a huge amount of negative press about his 'unnaccountability' and the 'arrogant' way he dealt with people. There were press stories that if he refused to give up the name then they would have to force him via the courts. Throughout this Robert kept a dignified silence. When he released the name to auDA ICANN released this statement
.au.
"Whereas Robert Elz has devoted over 15 years of selfless and dedicated service to the global Internet community as the registry founder and operator of
Resolved that the ICANN Board on behalf of the global Internet community extends its deepest thanks to Robert Elz for his profound
countributions to the evolution and stable performance of the global Internet."
We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Some tidbit of information that I didn't know about: Vint Cerf happens to have some STRONG ties to another mayor news-item: WorldCom: WorldCom: Resources: Cerf's Up (Check out the date on this piece) Since I didn't know this, I guess other people might not know it either.
(Score:5, Not Funny)
FWIW, here is a transcription of the statement that included the publication of Gilmore's e-mail to Vint Cerf, transcribed from the PDF image from the link linked to by the article.
It looked to me that Vint was doing everything he could legally do, to do the right thing.
-----------
I, Vinton Cerf, declare:
1. I am the Chairman of the Board of Defendant Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and am competent to testify to those matters.
2. Mr. Auerbach has never, pursuant to Section 6 of the ICANN Inspection Procedures, requested full ICANN Board review of the Audit Committee's determination regarding the arrangements for his inspection of the corporate records.
3. On March 18, 1002, I received an e-mail from John Gilmore, in which he asserts that he "contributed significant funding for" this lawsuit. Mr. Gilmore is one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization providing representation for Mr. Auerbach in this lawsuit. A true and correct copy of the e-mail from Mr. Gilmore is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration was signed on April 16, 2002 at Washington, D.C.
[ Signature ]
Vinton Cerf
[ Attached e-mail ]
-----------
I seems to me that Vint is pointing out that the decision was made by a subset of the Board of Directors, the "Audit Committee". It also points out that there is recourse available to Auerbach that he has not exercised, prior to filing the lawsuit.
It also seems (to me) that the statement numbered "3" was minimal, in not drawing any conclusions based on it. Thus the "terse statement" condemnation of Vint Cerf's statement in the article isn't really a very strong condemnation; it looks to me that, by leaving out the social context, Vint allows for interpretation favorable to the case.
This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that the statement numbered "2" seems to go out of its way to point out a way around the "Audit Committee", as if it were a tightly controlled minority clique of the full board, and in pointing out seems to imply success might be achievable via that route.
At the very least, Auerbach needs to try to avail himself of that route, so that if it fails, he can counter a motion for dismissal (i.e. it's arguable that this case is only a matter for the courts if all other reasonable recourse has been exhausted, which it has not been, according to this statement).
I have a very hard time believing that Vint would not have been as explicit or terse as this, were it not for the legal liability issue as the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Defendant.
-- Terry
> They whine for money for court cases that
> usually are doomed to the very start
> Why don't they usually win?
*cough* e-mail has as much protection as phone calls, requires a warrant to seize
*cough* Code declared free speech
*cough* CDA overturned
*cough* Dmitry freed
> I'd rather put money (from anon sources) into
> a pool requesting program X to be written.
*cough* the DES-cracker
*cough* any number of free software projects that Gilmore has personally funded.
Aim your bullets at the other side, kid. You're smoking up the mess hall.
Want to hear the other side of the ICANN story? Vint Cerf will be attending a round-table conference in my home country of Luxembourg on Thursday July 4 at 2:30pm CET (time zone convertor here) (it's just down the road from me, but I won't be able to attend to put questions to him, gotta work!). A live webcast will be available here, so tune in then. Check out the conference info page for some good links and background on Cerf.
---- scrm
I would like to hear you ellaborate a bit about The Hague.
you might clue me in a bit about what the hell Mr Bush is whining about.
Noone else seems to have a problem, but to the US this is the biggest deal in the world, apperantly.
On the other hand the Bush administration (IMHO) tries to weasel it's way out of any and all international agreements.
What is his problem with agreeing to common rules and sticking to them?
All the world isn't texas you know, George.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."