[ALSC-Forum] Extremism

[DannyYounger]

My own US-centric comments:

Listening to Mike Roberts speaking of a watershed day in the history of the 
Internet, I find myself reminded of the words spoken by Barry Goldwater at 
the 1964 Republican Convention, "... extremism in the defense of liberty is 
no vice, and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice 
is no virtue."

Fortunately for this nation, Goldwater was trounced in the presidential 
election by Democrat Lyndon Johnson who had responded to Goldwater as 
follows: "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. 
Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue."  

The tragic events of Sept. 11 have become the rallying call for the 
extremists among us.  Those that seek equitable consideration for all 
Internet users in the ICANN process are branded by these extremists as 
"egalitarians" whose input is no more than "shallow rhetoric".   Fine, let's 
raise the discussion to a level of rhetoric that is not so shallow...

We have a founding compact with our US government to seat nine At-Large 
Directors.  Any group that claims that consensus exists to break our contract 
with our government is acting as a destabilizing force that threatens the 
continuity of our service as the private entity charged with the management 
of the Internet.   One breaks a contract with a sovereign nation at one's 
peril.  Claiming that this contract must be broken because it stemmed from 
"fuzzy thinking" and was predicated on an "unsound logical basis" is an 
unmitigated insult to the US government that through its Department of 
Commerce ratified this compact.

Breaking this compact after the Chairman of the ICANN Board has warranted 
that this will not happen is the ultimate abuse of trust... "Some remain 
concerned that the Initial Board could simply amend the bylaws and remove the 
membership provisions that we have just described above. We commit that this 
will not happen."  -- Esther Dyson November 6, 1998 

Mike Roberts asks us to think seriously about constructive improvements to 
the recommendations of the ALSC.  For starters, the ALSC should consider the 
value of honoring our agreement with the US government, and should thoroughly 
justify why such an agreement (that has yet to be properly implemented) 
should be broken when assurances have been made to the highest levels of our 
US government that this will not happen.  To do otherwise is to give free 
reign to extremism.

Secondly, when our US government through the NTIA has deemed closing the 
"digital divide" as an ongoing priority of the Commerce Department, we cannot 
adopt the cavalier attitude of Mr. Roberts who facetiously writes that it's 
not about solving "poverty, famine, infanticide, drug abuse and political 
oppression in the DNS."  We have a duty to follow the guidance of our US 
government to take all appropriate steps to protect the interests of those 
less fortunate than we might be.  This means eliminating all undue barriers 
to participation such as the poll tax that a membership fee in the ALSO would 
represent.

ICANN has warranted to the IRS that every SO is considered to be an internal 
working committee of our organization.  These working committees have as much 
right to the financial resources of ICANN as does the Darwin Group (which 
received $216,000 in consulting fees) or the Alexander Ogilvy firm (that 
received $302,557 for public affairs).  These groups were paid out of the 
general coffers as is Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue on a routine basis.  If an 
internal working committee needs ongoing regular funding in order to do its 
job for ICANN, let it be paid in the same manner.  

This constant demand for self-funding mechanisms does no more than obfuscate 
the fact that money is already set aside for purposes reasonably related to 
the legitimate activities of the Corporation.   Why are we to be treated 
differently than these other recipients of ICANN's largesse?  Are we less 
important?  Do we have less value?

Mike Roberts asks us to be prepared to compromise our goals in the interests 
of forging an At 
Large organization.  Compromising goals is one thing, compromising our 
principles by reneging on the agreement made with our government is far more 
serious consideration.  How can we in good conscience attend to other 
considerations in the ALSC report knowing that ICANN at any moment feels at 
liberty to break its word?  If we cannot rely upon promises made by our 
Board, there is no basis for any continued relationship.