Subject: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:38:12 -0400 (EDT)

I sent the following to Becky Burr a few minutes ago as a formal 
complaint about the ICANN abuse of users 
My proposal is online at the Dept of Commerce NTIA web site and 
also at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
I welcome comments and discussion on the issues raised by the letter
I have sent to Becky Burr and on the actual problem that has to 
be solved to protect and scale the vital functions of the Internet
in the public internet.

Ronda
[email-masked]
----------

>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked]
>Subject: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN

Becky Burr
NTIA 
U.S. Dept of Commerce
Washington, D.C.

Dear Becky

Have you tried to register for ICANN's membership? First the membership
is an ill conceived notion to try to hide that ICANN has been formed
to deny the public interest with regard to the Internet's names,
numbers and protocols. It's an effort to make it seem that a non profit
corporation can be entrusted with the ownership and control of vital
functions of the infrastructure of the Internet. A nonprofit corporation
can't be entrusted with this. These are vital social and public 
resources and they can't be put into a private sector entity.

However, rather than the US government making it possible to 
examine the problem of how to protect the vital functions of the 
Internet and to scale them in the public interest, ICANN was empowered
by the U.S. Department of Commerce with unbridled powers and a limited 
provision was created for so called "membership" of users, i.e. some 
limited right supposedly to vote for certain so called at large directors. 

Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that
limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are
not even making any access available to that. The version to sign
up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have
a browser with frames are not able to even use that part of the 
web site. And an alternative web site set up in another country
gives a message of "We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded.
Please try again when the system is less busy." when I tried to sign
up.

Clearly the whole ICANN model is not appropriate for the needs
of the Internet and its users.

I did propose a different model, and a prototype to build this
model to you before ICANN was given the U.S. Dept of Commerce
contract.

Clearly it was crucial that you explore other models and try
to determine what was the best proposal for the problem the 
U.S. government was faced with, namely how to protect the vital
functions of the Internet from vested interests and to make
it possible for them to scale.

It seems that the U.S. government wasn't even interested
in trying to identify the problem that had to be solved,
let alone in trying to determine how to solve it.

I am formerly objecting to the whole process of the creation
and development of ICANN by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
and requesting that you find a way to have the proposal I 
provided the Department of Commerce implemented.

My proposal provided a means to create meaningful online participation 
by users and for computer scientists supported by their governments
to create an open process that would utilize the Internet and 
its interactive processes to create the cooperative form needed
to safeguard the vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure.
That is what is needed not an institutional entity to encourage
the "vested interests" to fight over power and control over vital
functions of the Internet.

I am sending this to you as a formal complaint of not being
allowed to register with ICANN and asking that you take the necessary
means to stop the abuse of users and the Internet that ICANN 
represents.

Sincerely

Ronda Hauben
244 West 72nd Street Apt 15D
New York, N.Y. 10023
U.S.A.
(212)787-9361
[email-masked]

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:00:35 -0400

and I replied:

Ronda,

have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to 
register? do you know what the planning estimates were before
registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?
The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000
people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had
sent in raw registrations. Keep in mind also that there is a
PIN number that has to be sent by mail. There is a calendar
schedule that ICANN is trying to keep for the election itself,
so the PINs have to get to the voters in time for that. 

Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which
registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000
a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour)
simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations
close July 31. 

We all understand that the demand for this franchise far exceeds
our ability to satisfy it in this election cycle. An in-depth study
of the whole process is scheduled to begin after this election,
Ronda - perhaps you were unaware of that? The board detailed specific
areas to be considered. Perhaps the most effective way for your
idea to be considered is to arrange for your proposal to be made
available to the ICANN board?

Vint Cerf

>be solved to protect and scale the vital functions of the Internet

=================================================================
I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999

MCI WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047

"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 
5-8 June 2001 
Sweden International Fairs 
Stockholm, Sweden 
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001

---

From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:54:19 -0400

>people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had

This excuse follows the same "excuse pattern" that ICANN provides for almost
every problem.  What keeps happening is that these groups that do the
"planning" do so in secret and routinely ignore comments and often do not
know what they are doing.  Then when all kinds of problems occur due to the
faulty planning there are all these claims that some schedule must be met
and that anyone who wants to correct the problems is trying to slow down the
process and should be ignored.

The same thing happened with the UDRP.  When that was written many people
complained about no appeals process (short of filing a lawsuit).  There are
also extremely short deadlines for responding to a complaint or filing the
"appeal" lawsuit (10 days).  The excuse that was given was that these
appeals were only a delaying tactic by "cybersquatters".  Here we are 8
months into the UDRP process and all kinds of problems have been identified
with some of decisions rendered.  The lack of an appeals process has
resulted in at least 5 federal lawsuits and there have been numerous
complaints about the short deadlines.  Now that people are asking ICANN to
fix it we get brushed off.  McLaughlin recommended lawyers publish the UDRP
problems in legal journals so ICANN can review these some time in the
future.  Meanwhile, known problem that could be corrected are allowed to
continue.

There have been 2 reconsideration requests filed concerning the issue of
ICANN posting the appeals lawsuits in the list of decisions.  ICANN's
response to the request
included:http://www.icann.org/reconsideration/rc00-5.htm

"The ICANN tables do not include notations relating to subsequent
litigation, because the ICANN staff is simply too small and too
overstretched to monitor and verify the hundreds of legal disputes that will
surely ensue."

This response is misleading as the only thing that needs to be monitored and
published is whether a domain owner files a lawsuit within 10 days and has
the domain transfer stopped.  I filed a reconsideration request on this
matter (based on ICANN's misleading response) and that reconsideration
request has been ignored.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

---

From: Jay Fenello <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:15:29 -0400

>Ronda,

Hi Vint,

It is thoroughly disheartening to see one of
the founding fathers of the Internet become
just another run-of-the-mill ICANN apologist.

>registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?

There's an old saying --
   "A lack of planning on your part, does
   not constitute an emergency on our part."

Frankly, even calling those bogus Membership
Committee processes "planning" is a joke.  If
anything, it was an exercise in "how do we
give the *appearances* of accountability and
representation, without really doing so."

If ICANN was so concerned about doing studies
about representation before proceeding, then why
didn't they worry about "representation" when the
initial board was announced?  Why didn't they
worry about studies when the DNSO structure
(another gamed entity) was announced?

What's truly ironic is the double standard that
applies to user representation.  Why do people
who were initially funded by the U.S. Government
(with U.S. taxpayer dollars) somehow feel that
they have some kind of God-given right to assume
control over ICANN, and make these decisions for
all Netizens of the World?

>people.

A case of bad planning, or gaming gone bad?

I'll remind you that ICANN was originally promoted
as some obscure technical coordination society, despite
repeated claims from the outside that it was much more
important than that (Post, Froomkin, Mueller, et al.)

Now that the Internet community realizes that they've
been lied to, they want to participate in the process.
I can't blame them.  In fact, if I thought for a minute
that my vote would make a difference, I would join in a
heartbeat (or at least *try* and join :-).

I now know better than that :-(

Jay.

>As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had
>At 11:57 AM 7/30/2000 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Becky Burr
> >NTIA
> >U.S. Dept of Commerce
> >Washington, D.C.
> >
> >Dear Becky
> >

Respectfully,

Jay Fenello,
New Media Strategies
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
-------------------------------------------------------
"We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
    -- David Korten

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:54:59 -0400

> complaint about the ICANN abuse of users 

some of us want to do work and not play in the snake pit.  please remove me,
ietf, ... from your list of teh diseas-laden.  thanks.

randy

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:28:25 -0400

I have no idea why so many different lists have been spammed.  (Spam is 
a technical term for massive cross-posting.  Spam is bad.)

The US congresscritters listed won't even see the message, as their 
mail server searches (or some poor aide searches by hand) for the 
correct legislative office matching the users' home address.  In 
Ronda's case, it appears to be New York, but s/he didn't bother to 
research the correct recipient legislator.  (I've removed or BCC'd the 
legislators, and other obvious duplications and errors.  Again, I've no 
idea about many of the remainder.)

In short, Ronda and Russ are spammers with no clue.

[email-masked] wrote:
>...  The version to sign
Ronda has been active in ICANN for several years.  Yet s/he did not 
bother to sign up for membership until the last possible moment?

The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that 
support frames on a dozen platforms.  Folks that are unable to use 
the Internet are not an appropriate electorate.  Lazy kindergartners 
are not the target audience for ICANN membership.

> simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations
I signed up shortly after the announcement.  I was surprised at the 
length of time it took for my PIN to arrive in the mail.  But, I did 
receive an announcement in April to the prospective members 
explaining the delay.

Never-the-less, there is no fee for processing the membership.  
"Thanks to a grant from the Markle Foundation, the initial launch of 
ICANN's At Large Membership program has been funded without the need 
for membership dues."

Those that desire faster service might offer to pay for expediting.  
There's no such thing as a free lunch.  

Russ Smith wrote:
> know what they are doing.  

The planning was done in the open, and those that bothered to join the 
official announcement list anytime in the past several years has been 
aware of the process.  

> complained about no appeals process (short of filing a lawsuit).  

This poster appears to be ignorant of traditions of administrative law in 
the US and elsewhere.  Judicial review _is_ an appeals process!  That's 
why a "lawsuit" is filed.

> There are
> appeals were only a delaying tactic by "cybersquatters".  

On one hand, there is a complaint that response time is too slow.  On the 
other hand, that response time is too fast.  Make up your mind!

Although multiples of 10 days is a traditional time measure, in many 
jurisdictions times have been changed to reflect a 7 day week.  The 
Internet allows faster responses.  Why not reduce the time to 7 days?

Oh, I see, everybody else should be fast, but you should be allowed to 
be slower.  How thoughtful and consistent.

>... McLaughlin recommended lawyers publish the UDRP
> future.  

That's what one might expect for a legal process with peer review.

>...
Should a fee be added for litigants to pay ICANN to register their case?
Again, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:20:00 +0100 (BST)

> are not the target audience for ICANN membership.

I do hope this isn't the official ICANN view. I imagine that 
a disability discrimination lawsuit would soon follow.

L.

how many text-to-speech audio browsers support frames well?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Michael Sondow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:04:33 -0400

Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> some of us want to do work

Do you work, Mr. Bush? This is the first I've heard of it. I thought
you made your living by acting as a shill for Vint Cerf. 

> and not play in the snake pit.

Such respect for the users of the Internet! Finally someone from the
ICANN inner circle has spoken honestly.

> please remove me,
> ietf

Are you now the IETF, Mr. Bush? Or have you gone mad from
megalomania?

> from your list of the disease-laden.

Do the members of the dnso.discuss list have a disease? A
psychological disease, perhaps. Like icannophobia.

============================================================
Michael Sondow           I.C.I.I.U.     http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482                        Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================