Re: Unannounced, non-public meeting in Washington on Jan. 21?

Michael Sondow (msondow@iciiu.org)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:11:18 -0500


Esther Dyson a écrit:
>
> Thank you, Jay. Keep asking reasonable questions!
>
> I'd also like to remind folks that secret deals are pretty tough to enforce
> in the face of open meetings, open discussion, and the like.

Once a deal has been made, there's no need to enforce it. The deal has been
made; the parties to it agree; it doesn't have to be enforced.

> Even if you
> believed (and I do not) that some nefarious plot was about to be hatched on
> the evening of jan 21,

The plotting is going on now, not on the 21st. Part of it is to insert
unacceptable clauses into the bylaws of the DNSO.org's application without
the knowledge and consent of the DNSO.org participants. This is being fought
over right now in the DNSO.org drafting committee and within the DNSO.org's
membership. Other parts of the trademarks lawyers' strategy are undoubtedly
being put into effect with other groups.

On January 21st, behind the backs of those who can raise a strong protest
and argue effectively against the INTA's tactics and against their
undemocratic proposals, arrangements will be made with the invited people so
that there will be certain agreements and power-blocks going into the
meeting on the 22nd. That is, a division of the opposition to the trademark
interests, rather than a large, open consensus which might successfully
oppose them. Groups like ORSC, DNSO.org, and others have agreed not to
negotiate independently, in order to keep that from happening. The January
21st meeting is a breach of that agreement.

> what good would it do the plotters if they couldn't
> keep the parties in line thereafter?

Again, there's no need to keep people in line once you have cut a deal with
them. One could suppose that since you are a businesswoman you understand
these things quite well, and so it surprises me that you would write such an
obviously disingenuous post as this.

> ICANN will be looking at the SO
> proposals as submitted, not at (nonexistent) secret deals behind them.

Precisely. All you will see is the final proposals, submitted by the
organizations. That's why it's so important that they be arrived at by a
consensus of all those involved, not by partisan and exclusionary meetings
where those opposed have no chance to speak and no opportunity to convince
others of their viewpoints.

> The
> accepted proposals will comprise the bylaws, membership criteria, voting
> structures, review processes, etc. etc. that the SOs and their members (and
> ICANN) will have to adhere to - with everyone watching.

Not everyone will be watching. There will, so far as we know, be no large
voting procedure for the ICANN's decision on SO applications. You will
receive what is sent to you, which might very well be proposals unacceptable
to the majority if they have been drafted in a closed process, and you on
the Board will make your decision. That is all. That is not a democratic
process by wide-scale voting on a proposal.

Therefore it is essential that you receive different and varied proposals to
choose from, that these be published, and that at least the proposals
themselves, or some of them, reflect a consensus of some widespread and
varied interests, not things cooked up by a handful of people or by
special-interest organizations like the INTA.

If this process were really being done in a fair way, the INTA would have
sent you their proposal. Instead, they insert themselves by extra-procedural
means onto the drafting team of the DNSO.org and present their bylaws
proposals to a few people in the DNSO.org instead of at a meeting attended
by a large number of participants, in order to explout and usurp the name of
the DNSO.org for themselves. At the same time, they arrange meetings with
selected organizations, excluding those they believe to be intractably
opposed to their undemocratic bylaws, in order to try and convince those
selected organizations to support them, or at least not to oppose them, when
they will be forced at last to confront the few remaining people lined up
against them.

To you who live and work in the world of business, maybe these are normal
tactics. But to the Internet, they are dishonest and disgusting.

> I'm not saying that the whole world is squeaky-clean and bright, but we are
> subjecting it to an awful lot of sunshine.

How are you doing that? By coming out here in defense of a closed meeting in
Washington between the corporate trademark interests and selected invitees?

Don't curse the darkness; come
> shine a light.

That is what I am trying to do, by bringing out into the open the truth
about what's going on, which the organizers and invitees to the Jan. 21st
meeting haven't done. Would you have that stopped?