Re: [ALSC-Forum] Extremism

[hans.klein]

I am especially impressed by the following two paragraphs written by the 
Chair of the General Assembly of the DNSO, Danny Younger:

 >>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



At 02:41 PM 10/27/2001 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>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.