Tuesday, 4 April 2006
Thank you for your support
My deepest thanks to all of you who sent e-mail messages to ICANN's public forum last week in support of my challenge to ICANN's secrecy and lack of accountability in its decision-making on new travel-related Internet domains controlled by the travel industry and closed to travellers.
Your unprecedented showing of support forced the Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, Dr. Vint Cerf of Google, to acknowledge my request and respond to it (albeit disingenuously) during the Board's public session :
VINT CERF: ... I HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR 32 ONLINE LETTERS WHICH I HAVE HERE PRINTED OUT.
I ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE IF I DID NOT TRY TO READ THESE ORALLY INTO THE RECORD.
THEY WILL BE POSTED.
BUT, BASICALLY, THEY ARE A LETTER FROM EDWARD HASBROUCK, WHICH REPEATS MOST OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT DOT TRAVEL AND THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
AND THE OTHER 31 OR SO LETTERS ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT URGING THAT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BE UNDERTAKEN.
MR. HASBROUCK CONTINUES TO BE CONFUSED , I THINK, OR AT LEAST APPEARS NOT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN BOARD HAS, INDEED, DESIGNATED THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS ITS INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS OPERATOR.
SO IF MR. HASBROUCK IS CONCERNED THAT WE HAVEN'T OFFICIALLY DONE THAT, THAT'S THE CITATION THAT SHOULD PUT THAT UNCERTAINTY TO REST.
FINALLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO STRONGLY RECOMMEND IN RESPONSE TO MR. HASBROUCK'S E-MAIL IS THAT HE DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
THE METHOD FOR INITIATING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW IS, IN FACT, TO DEAL WITH -- DIRECTLY WITH THE OPERATOR OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT GENERAL COUNSEL HAS SUPPLIED TO MR. HASBROUCK POINTERS TO THE [ICDR]. BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THOSE AREN'T AVAILABLE TO HIM OR THEY'VE BEEN LOST, I'M SURE THAT GENERAL COUNSEL CAN SUPPLY THAT AGAIN....
SO THAT'S JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED OVERNIGHT, AND PERHAPS ONE THIS MORNING, WILL BE POSTED IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN POSTED, AND THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED HERE IN THE RECORD.
BUT FOR LACK OF TIME, I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORALLY.
Of course, Dr. Cerf didn't actually read my message to him, or any of your messages, or mention that my previous queries to him and Mr. Jeffrey -- specifically analyzing how the resolution he cited falls short of the requirements of ICANN's Bylaws for independent review and for policy decisions -- remain entirely unanswered. So his continued bad faith effort to frustrate my legitimate request, and delay doing what the Bylaws require, wasn't necessarily apparent to anyone present in the room in New Zealand, or watching the Webcast of the meeting.
And, as I've reported in a previous article , I was excluded from ICANN's press conferences (again in violation of both ICANN's Bylaws and specific promises by ICANN after their last meeting and during this one) to ensure that I didn't get a chance to ask any potentially embarrassing questions.
But I haven't given up, and I'm not going away without answers.
I'll be responding to ICANN, yet again, in the next few days as soon as I've caught up on some other projects, including updating the section of my Web site on ICANN and Internet domain names with more on what is happening, why it matters, and what you can do to help.
And I'll offer a US$100 cash prize to the first reader who can provide the URL of any reference on the ICDR Web site today to procedures specified as applying to independent review of ICANN decisions, or US$1,000 if you can show that such a reference was posted (and linked in some path from the ICDR public home page) on the ICDR Web site a year ago, as of the date of my request for independent review, 8 April 2005. Any takers? Dr. Cerf? Mr Jeffrey?
Thirty messages may not seem like a lot, but ICANN is an obscure organization, the subject is arcane and its significance obscure, the official agenda wasn't published until the day the public forum began, and the public forum was open for less than 24 hours.
ICANN has never before made remote public comments to their "open" forum publicly available, or acknowledged receiving multiple comments on an issue -- especially one that they had refused requests to place on their agenda. Only one message was received by the Board on any other topic, and the comments on my request for independent review were unanimously supportive. Although the Board meeting continued for another day, and I received copies of many more messages to ICANN, none of the later ones were posted on the ICANN Web site. From what I received, I suspect that ICANN may have received as many as a hundred messages on this topic, all urging them to begin an open process to appoint an independent review provider, set up procedures for independent review, and move forward with my request. Again, thank you.
[Addendum, 6 April 2006: In a separate message to the public forum, which Dr. Cerf didn't mention, I pointed out that the report given by ICANN's Reconsideration Committee was incomplete: It omitted my request for reconsideration of ICANN's failure to open its meeting of 3 May 2005 to journalists or the public. This May 2005 request for reconsideration of the holding of an invalid closed "meeting" is entirely separate from my earlier request for independent review of the lack of openness and transparency in the April 2005 decison on ".travel", but other than to acknowledge its receipt, ICANN has entirely ignored it.]Link | Posted by Edward on Tuesday, 4 April 2006, 13:29 ( 1:29 PM)