Subject: Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:22:34 -0500

Vint,

IMHO, vendor submitted proprietary information deserves protection
against disclosure to the public, but not to directors of the organi-
zation, whereas personnel information, except in very narrow, limited
cases deserves protection against disclosure even to a director.

As I see it, they ain't the same thing, ergo, different rules apply.

Jim

"vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 08/01/2002 11:04:28
PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
cc:   ietf <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion.  Was: Re: delegation
      mechanism...

ICANN may receive information from vendors, for example, that is considered
proprietary - that deserves protection as much as personnel information.

An enormous amount of ICANN material is published on the web - more, I
imagine,
than a great many other non-profit organizations.

vint

At 06:46 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>these are details of yet another cat fight into which icann has
>wandered in its ever-unsatisfied desire for pool-pah.  i was trying
>to look above that.  what fiscal or procedural matters of icann
>(other than personnel data, which are usually well-protected
>anyway) preclude simple transparency?  why don't you just simply
>publish the stuff at a detailed level on the web [0]?

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:29:57 -0400

jim,

at no time has ICANN ever clained that directors did not have full access;
the question was how to assure that proprietary/confidential information was not released
to the public and how a disagreement about what was confidential would be resolved before
it was released.

Vint

Vint Cerf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:46:43 -0400

> at no time has ICANN ever clained that directors did not have full access;

Mr. Prosser said, "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests
at the appropriate time, you know."

"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time?" The first I knew about
it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he'd come to
clean the windows and he said no, he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't
tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and
charged me a fiver. Then he told me."

"But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for
the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday
afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them,
had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard.' "

...from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:15:36 -0400 (EDT)

I don't particularly agree with Karl's DNS philsosphy and I don't
particularly agree with the ICANN concept. My own beliefs are off in a
different direction from either.

But anyone can read the court's decision. And any reasonable person will
then wonder why ICANN chose to waste its money and goodwill fighting the
lawful access demands of a Director but instead chose to insist on
imposing illegal and improper procedures and seemingly trying to confirm
all of the worst things said about how ICANN is opaque and un-trustable.

And since the written record in the court's decision is so clear, they
will also wonder why both of your are squandering your reputation trying
to deny that the court found ICANN's actions to be so clearly illegal
and improper that it could summarily rule against ICANN based solely on
the law and undisputed facts without any need for a trial.

Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:41:17 -0700

>the law and undisputed facts without any need for a trial.

Don,  I have had no discussions about this suit with ICANN.  I therefore 
claim no direct knowledge about their own reasons.  My comments are 
strictly from my own thinking.

I can, however, claim that there is a key benefit that was served.  It is 
the sort of thing that is sometimes necessary, no matter how 
distasteful.  The phrase "serving the greater good" comes to mind.

The reality is that Karl is entirely out of control.  He has no interest at 
all in really helping ICANN.  He plays to the media.  He does not 
negotiate.  Hence, giving him access to records is inherently risky.  It is 
certain he will abuse that access, because he has established a pattern of 
turning any and all information around to serve his purpose.

In the light of that, I believe that ICANN achieved an essential benefit in 
bringing Karl under a court directive.  That is why I say that ICANN lost 
the suit but won the war.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:46:16 -0700

As previously noted, listen carefully to what your opponent says you are doing,
to find out what your opponent is really trying to do to you.

Here is an attempt to help you with a very little bit of editing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reality is that ICANN is entirely out of control.  ICANN has no
interest at all in really helping the Internet.  ICANN plays to the
media.  ICANN does not negotiate.  Hence, giving ICANN staff control
of ICANN records is inherently risky.  It is certain ICANN will abuse
that access, because ICANN has established a pattern of turning any
and all information around to serve ICANN's purpose.

Decide for yourself which version is the most accurate;-)...

The reality is that Karl is entirely out of control.  He has no interest at all
in really helping ICANN.  He plays to the media.  He does not
negotiate.  Hence, giving him access to records is inherently risky.  It is
certain he will abuse that access, because he has established a pattern of
turning any and all information around to serve his purpose.

Truly uncanny how this little inversion works;-)...\Stef

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 2:41 PM -0700 8/2/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Don,  I have had no discussions about this suit with ICANN.  I
>therefore claim no direct knowledge about their own reasons.  My
>comments are strictly from my own thinking.
>
>I can, however, claim that there is a key benefit that was served.
>It is the sort of thing that is sometimes necessary, no matter how
>The reality is that Karl is entirely out of control.  He has no
>interest at all in really helping ICANN.  He plays to the media.  He
>does not negotiate.  Hence, giving him access to records is
>inherently risky.  It is certain he will abuse that access, because
>he has established a pattern of turning any and all information
>around to serve his purpose.
>
>In the light of that, I believe that ICANN achieved an essential
>benefit in bringing Karl under a court directive.  That is why I say
>that ICANN lost the suit but won the war.
>
>d/
>
>
>----------