Slashdot Mirror
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.
During Standard Time, his name is Karl Auerbach.
But during Daylight Savings Time, his name is Karl Adenauer!
(ducks)
sulli
RTFJ.
And a spell checker - it's grammar.
remind me again why we have to have these kinds of legal battles with the orginization that is "running" the Internet? Doesn't it counter the "priciples" of the 'net? (openness, sharing of knowledge, etc..)
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
ICANN has -- as we all know -- hindered Mr. Aeurbach and others representing the public interest since elected. Now, they're finally forced to give him access to all documents -- though he should also be given an unequivicol right to copy them and make them publicly available.
It would be in character if ICANN went through before Friday and labelled all of their documents "confidential". These guys are crooks just like the people at Enron and Global Crossings.
ICANN obviously realized what a mistake they made in "allowing public elections", as critics were elected. They're revoking elections so they can retain their totalitarian control. Fucking nazi's.
Auerbach should have a permanent seat. No one on ICANN has done a better job than him. All the rest of them -- aside from that European elected fellow, allied with Auerbach -- are crooks.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Gall! Poppycock! They are above reproach! They are the Internet! To HELL with everyone else!
The problem with the populace is they don't know what is good for them. They will me made to know, and fairly we will rule them, with an iron fist!
--
Zig!
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
For those of you just tuning in, Auerbach was elected to the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) board in November 2000 by the public at large. According to a Salon primer, ICANN "had already earned a reputation for ineptitude and closed-door policies that favor corporate interests. ... Auerbach intended to guide ICANN toward reform." He requested access to the financial records, he says, "[T]o find out where the money goes. Why does it take $2.4 million (47 applicants paid $50,000 each) to evaluate seven top-level domains?" As a director, according to California law, he was entitled to "the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind," but ICANN thought otherwise, and the suit whose outcome is the topic of this story followed.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
does this seem to anyone else as just a pitiful bid for extra time? auerbach has been working for two years to get ahold of these documents. what could an extra 10 days possibly do for ICANN? they're just trying to be difficult on principle...
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
...which means that he won't get very far, because ICANN will of course attempt to get a court order to stop him from releasing any information to the public, and he'll be prevented from doing so until the court renders its opinion one way or the other. And that's for every separate instance. ICANN will of course make sure that each attempt to get a court order takes as long as possible.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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?
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Please comment.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
So are we just in for another round of legal battles?
Of course, if an appeal allows them to delay revealing anything interesting until Auerbach is out of office, they will have won.
Has anyone else noticed the odd surge in bids on papers shredders at E-Bay lately?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The EFF has the court ruling in HTML thanks to Cryptome. You can also read the press release.
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
- Having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts presented herein, he court concludes that paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the Inspection Procedures conflict with section 6334 and Art. V, 21 of the Bylaws by unreasonably restricting directors' access to corporate records and depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by law.
- Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both section 6334 and Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights.
- Additionally, the Inspection Procedures here apparently have not even been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors, but were promulgated by an ad hoc group of functionaries consisting of the Audit Committee, Louis Touton, Diane Schroeder, and Lynn (Auerbach Dec. Ex. 17, 18, 21).
- Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable issue as to any material fact and Petitioner Auerbach is entitled to judgment as a matter of law granting his Petition for Writ of Mandate.
I'd say - that is clear....From ICANN to UCANT.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
None-the-less ... check out opennic
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
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.'')
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
No, I am not talking about opennic or new.net or similar. A splintered net is useless, which is why nobody uses these extra TLDs. I have yet to see any of these extra TLDs appear in a URL, ad, billboard or E-mail address, and for good reason.
There is a natural monopoly in the root. We all have to use the same root, or I can't tell you my e-mail address and expect you to be able to e-mail me with it. Or I have to tell you which root I use, which means a super-root that lists roots, in otherwords a shared root once again.
Attempts at alternate roots will fail both because of this, and because most of them so far have just tried to be a different ICANN. They still wanted to hand out TLD monopolies to people and create TLDs with inherent meaning.
A really workable system has to have all TLD operators (and thus the 2lDs under them) on an even footing. If they are not on an even footing you get artificial scarcity as people try to own meaningful words and phrases ahead of everybody else. Then you get conflict.
Nobody has done this.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
From the www.opennic.unrated.net website
The OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled Network Information Center offering a democratic, non-national, alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries.
Users of the OpenNIC DNS servers, in addition to resolving host names in the Legacy U.S. Government DNS, can resolve host names in the OpenNIC operated namespaces as well as in the namespaces with which we have peering agreements (at this time those are AlterNIC and The Pacific Root).
There ya go ... problem solved ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
But the flow isnt 2 way. What happens to the AOL user who can resolve your domain? This is why most splinter DNS NICs dont work.
Now, if the TLDs got more uppity and took a page from the US's book on paying its UN dues, well, maybe this wouldn't be an issue.
"Your honor we need to drag this trial out just two days more while we get the rest shredded."
I thought this was very interesting: (from http://icann.blog.us/stories/2002/07/29/auerbachWi nsCourtCriticize.html cited above:)
"ICANN responded that it didn't see Microsoft or IBM putting their general ledgers and charts of account on the web, but the Judge quickly intervened with this: Court: 'As a non-profit, public benefit corporation, you have a duty to the public -- the international public in this case -- that is very different than Microsoft or IBM. This is a public benefit corporation.'"
That's just the problem. ICANN keeps forgetting that it's public, and keeps falling back into the private, corporate mindset.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.