Karl Auerbach Wins Right To Inspect ICANN Records

Siobhan Hansas writes: "Karl Auerbach was in court today fighting for the right to inspect and copy documents he first asked to see in 2000, shortly after he became a member of the Board of Directors. Salon have the AP story. Auerbach won the right to inspect documents, but not to copy them, and was required to give ICANN 10 days notice of release of any information marked "confidential" to give them the opportunity to seek a court order stopping him." M : A first-hand report from the hearing makes good reading.

Comments

Why don't we have the will to replace ICANN?

[btempleton]

As those who design DNS software know, the power over DNS resides not with ICANN, but collectively among all the people who configure the root server tables in the major sites and ISPs of the world, and in particular, in the sites that distribute the most common name servers (BIND and IIS) which come pre-configured with a root table that points at the official ICANN list.

If the net community got together and could express a unanimous will, that table could be changed. No court would be needed. Governments would be hard pressed to stop it.

But it requires near unanimity because a splintered net, where some people use some roots and the other half uses a different set, so names don't resolve the same, is bad for everybody.

Unanimity is impossible over a given policy but it seems near-unanimity might well be possible over replacing ICANN with another body that will represent the users in choosing a replacement for ICANN. We might universally agree to make the change according to some democratic user-based process even if we don't know how the final decision will go. We just all have to agree to do whatever 51% of the users approve.

How this works is documented on my web site at this essay along with my proposed possible replacement.

But the key isn't if I can get unanimous support for my particularl proposal -- I can't. The question is, can we find a way to a path away from ICANN without yet agreeing on what it is?

Marginalizing ICANN

[FattMattP]

What will it take to marginalize ICANN? Isn't ICANN only an issue because we can't collectively agree on using new root nameservers? A huge task, I realize, but ICANN only has power because everyone in the net community continues to give them power. There's no technical reason that we can't take that power away from them, is there not?

Please comment.

ICANN's response

[Jonathunder]

ICANN has posted a statement responding to the decision. In part, the statement says:
... Judge Janavs ruled that California law does not permit California non-profit corporations to place any restrictions or conditions on director's inspection rights, but allows only courts to place restrictions, after a demand for inspection has been refused. In this respect, the court rejected ICANN's position. ICANN respectfully disagrees and will consider whether to appeal this decision upon review of the Court's written judgment, which will be issued next week.

Of course, if an appeal allows them to delay revealing anything interesting until Auerbach is out of office, they will have won.

Re:remind me...

[JabberWokky]

I've read a lot of RFCs over the years and I somehow don't recall any of them having to do with openness, sharing of knowledge, or any of the other traits people keep thinking the internet ought to have.

I've read many of them over the years too. Perhaps you missed some like RFC 3271, titled "The Internet is for Everyone", or ones like 1121, a collection of poetry about the net, or 3271, a memorial to Jon Postel.

The net was created by very intelligent people. Intelligent people tend to think about lots of things, including the importance of openness, sharing of knowledge, and keeping a very human perspective on the rigors of engineering a community.

--
Evan

You want OpenNIC

[SuperDuG]

Okay, in all seriousness what you're asking for is OpenNIC. They have all the entries from ICANN along with their own. They also have entries from numerous other open roots across the world. Basically I see opennic as being the number one resource in taking away the power that ICANN holds. New.net had the right idea, but screwed it up when they popped themselves in with just about every bit of spyware out there, plus I don't know of anyone that actually uses their domains, no one mirrors them and they require a really funky plugin that messes up your TCP/IP in windows.

None-the-less ... check out opennic

Re:That makes a lot of sense.

[rnturn]

Hmm... Wonder what would happen if he were to hand scan some of the more damaging documents (assuming that they exist) onto his laptop which would later turn up ``missing''. (``Gosh, I don't know what happened to it. I know I had it when I went into the NYT offices for that interview. I'll have to ask around.'')

Karl KNOWS where the MONEY is going

[Garry Anderson]

TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE

Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN 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.