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.
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
We have the problem of equating the Internet with a truly distributed, open system controlled by no one and belonging to no one.
Too often we forget that DNS is completely dependant upon 13 central systems, and much of the networking is commercially owned.
That last part has come to mind recently, due to the troubles of KPNQwest and WorldCom.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
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
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.
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The EFF has the court ruling in HTML thanks to Cryptome. You can also read the press release.
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
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.