FTC letter on new gTLDs
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw, and read, this letter on the new gTLD program sent by the FTC to ICANN on the 16th. It's a stinging letter and contains a number of elements that several of us have been saying for years. It also infers that ICANN is corrupted by contracted parties. For me -- I know you don't all share my views -- I feel somewhat vindicated that some entity that actually will have to be listened to, is finally saying these things: http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf
Hi, Why is that a US FTC Commission must be listened to? Responded to, yes, but listened to, as in obey? Why? What authority does they have over the ICANN multistakeholder process? avri On 19 Dec 2011, at 12:19, Beau Brendler wrote:
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw, and read, this letter on the new gTLD program sent by the FTC to ICANN on the 16th. It's a stinging letter and contains a number of elements that several of us have been saying for years. It also infers that ICANN is corrupted by contracted parties. For me -- I know you don't all share my views -- I feel somewhat vindicated that some entity that actually will have to be listened to, is finally saying these things:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 19 December 2011 14:36, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
Why is that a US FTC Commission must be listened to? Responded to, yes, but listened to, as in obey? Why?
I think ALAC knows painfully well the gulf between "listened to" and "heeded" :-P What the FTC, and the IGO letters, and ANA noise, and the EC statements before them are indicating is that there is a really big mass of groups who don't believe that the MSM model fully included them as stakeholders. I can easily self-induce a headache just trying to determine what GNSO constituency would be appropriate for UNESCO or the International Labour Organization. Given that the US Olympic Committee was just denied membership in the NCSG because of its "perspective", it's increasingly easy to make the case that the MSM works fine for insiders but excludes massive swaths of the Real World. So the insiders say "the MSM works fine", conveniently forgetting to add the requisite "for us".... .... the "us" being the compact between domain sellers and domain buyers, with everyone else left on the sidelines. And even the governments of the world have to engage in brinksmanship just to get "listened to". - Evan
As far as I know, US owns IANA therefore they own the Internet. So even though they may not have any authority over the ICANN multistakeholder process in the end it boils down to who owns it. Don't you think? -ed On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
Why is that a US FTC Commission must be listened to? Responded to, yes, but listened to, as in obey? Why?
What authority does they have over the ICANN multistakeholder process?
avri
On 19 Dec 2011, at 12:19, Beau Brendler wrote:
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw, and read, this letter on the new gTLD program sent by the FTC to ICANN on the 16th. It's a stinging letter and contains a number of elements that several of us have been saying for years. It also infers that ICANN is corrupted by contracted parties. For me -- I know you don't all share my views -- I feel somewhat vindicated that some entity that actually will have to be listened to, is finally saying these things:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
On 19 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
As far as I know, US owns IANA therefore they own the Internet. So even though they may not have any authority over the ICANN multistakeholder process in the end it boils down to who owns it. Don't you think?
No I don't. The instant the US tries to control it a suzerain it will inspire several different movements, includoing: - a departure from the single source on names controlled by IANA - a departure from control by a US incorporated organization. Much of the world is watching and is not friendly to the idea of the US pulling the strings. The second that ICANN starts allowing itself to be jerked around by US agencies whose strings are controlled by big US money, is the beginning of the end. That is what I think. As with any new stakeholder looking to get involved in the process, they should join the appropriate group, in this case as an observer in GAC for the IGOs and as a member of the US delegation for the FTC. These new stakeholders have been represented by the GAC for a long time. And the GAC has been involved in the process from the start, having slowed it down by a good part of year already, having been included in the process from the very start by the presence of the liaison it then had with the GNSO. Yes new stakeholders are finally discovering ICANN, but we cannot reopen every subject every time some new agency is convinced by monied classes that they must get involved - and don't doubt for a second that these US agencies now getting involved are doing so at the behest of their financial "motivators" in the US. avri
-ed
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,
Why is that a US FTC Commission must be listened to? Responded to, yes, but listened to, as in obey? Why?
What authority does they have over the ICANN multistakeholder process?
avri
On 19 Dec 2011, at 12:19, Beau Brendler wrote:
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw, and read, this letter on the new gTLD program sent by the FTC to ICANN on the 16th. It's a stinging letter and contains a number of elements that several of us have been saying for years. It also infers that ICANN is corrupted by contracted parties. For me -- I know you don't all share my views -- I feel somewhat vindicated that some entity that actually will have to be listened to, is finally saying these things:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
On 19 December 2011 15:16, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Much of the world is watching and is not friendly to the idea of the US pulling the strings. The second that ICANN starts allowing itself to be jerked around by US agencies whose strings are controlled by big US money, is the beginning of the end.
That is what I think.
I don't disagree. Where we part company is in identifying which "agencies", controlled by US (and some foreign) money, are pulling the strings. The jerking around is well and truly underway... just not IMO by governments. It's no accident that there does not exist a trade association for registries and registrars to represent their interests because, arguably, ICANN already serves that role quite well. These new stakeholders have been represented by the GAC for a long time. "Represented" ... as in, observer status in a body that itself has only advisory and no policy-making role? One might be excused for thinking such status keeps them very far from the action. What is becoming clearer and clearer is that not all MSM stakeholders are equal. Claims of a broadly-inclusive process, that has some stakeholders deeply embedded while others need to yell really loud just to join the distant periphery, aren't fooling anyone outside ICANN's bubble. - Evan
I think it's a bad assumption to imagine every other country and citizen of the world likes what they see in new gtlds, some might be equally as annoyed if the US stood by and did nothing when it had the chance to. Ultimately what we are seeing is not an a emerging opposition to the program but an opposition to the claim that there was consensus and due diligence. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sender: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:51:42 To: Avri Doria<avri@ella.com> Cc: NARALO Discussion List<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FTC letter on new gTLDs On 19 December 2011 15:16, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Much of the world is watching and is not friendly to the idea of the US pulling the strings. The second that ICANN starts allowing itself to be jerked around by US agencies whose strings are controlled by big US money, is the beginning of the end.
That is what I think.
I don't disagree. Where we part company is in identifying which "agencies", controlled by US (and some foreign) money, are pulling the strings. The jerking around is well and truly underway... just not IMO by governments. It's no accident that there does not exist a trade association for registries and registrars to represent their interests because, arguably, ICANN already serves that role quite well. These new stakeholders have been represented by the GAC for a long time. "Represented" ... as in, observer status in a body that itself has only advisory and no policy-making role? One might be excused for thinking such status keeps them very far from the action. What is becoming clearer and clearer is that not all MSM stakeholders are equal. Claims of a broadly-inclusive process, that has some stakeholders deeply embedded while others need to yell really loud just to join the distant periphery, aren't fooling anyone outside ICANN's bubble. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 19 Dec 2011, at 15:51, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
What is becoming clearer and clearer is that not all MSM stakeholders are equal. Claims of a broadly-inclusive process, that has some stakeholders deeply embedded while others need to yell really loud just to join the distant periphery, aren't fooling anyone outside ICANN's bubble.
I really think you underestimate the vast power the GAC advice has; just look at the changes they got implemented in the AG once they stomped their collective foot.. True, ALAC has to strive to get itself heard and that is something that you know I support getting fixed, and I beleive it is getting better all the time. And ALAC has gotten a Board seat, and could possible have gotten 2 if it had fought for implementation of what had been recommended. that Board seat has a voice and uses it as far as I can tell The GAC, as I understand it turned down Board seats, but that has not minimized their ability to control the things they want to control. As far as observer status in GAC and elsewhere in ICANN, that only means you don't get to vote or object to the consensus, they have full voice. Additionally anyone, from anywhere can participate in most any working group, the place where all policy is initiated. One does not need to be an 'insider', they merely need to be active and do the work of participating and contributing. avri
Why is that a US FTC Commission must be listened to? Responded to, yes, but listened to, as in obey? Why?
What authority does they have over the ICANN multistakeholder process?
Because, much though they would like to pretend otherwise, ICANN is a California not-for-profit corporation, subject to US law. R's, John
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Beau Brendler -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
gbruen＠knujon.com -
John R. Levine