FC: Michael Geist on ICANN court ruling and what it truly reveals

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 21:00:55 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Major League Baseball reportedly assails NY Yankees fan site"

    [It seems like I keep sending along pieces beating up on ICANN, but it also 
    seems like most independent observers are critical ones. And Politech is 
    only as good as the articles that people send along... --Declan]
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:00:54 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: Michael Geist <mgeistat_private>
    Subject: ICANN's Real Smoking Gun
    
    Declan,
    
    You may be interested in my most column today assessing the recent Auerbach 
    v. ICANN decision.  It argues that while Auerbach may not find any smoking 
    guns within the documentation now that he has been granted unconditional 
    access, it turns out the real ICANN smoking gun -- a management that seeks 
    to curtail criticism and transparency along with a board that quietly 
    allows it to happen -- is open for all to see.
    
    MG
    
    <http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1E043871>
    <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020808/TWGEIS>
    
      From globeandmail.com, Thursday, August  8, 2002
    
    Internet overseer takes wrong path on accountability
    
    MICHAEL GEIST
    
    In the age of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, it would be almost 
    unthinkable to try to impede board disclosure and transparency. Almost. 
    Last week, a court case involving the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
    Names and Numbers (ICANN) -- the Internet administrative agency -- and Karl 
    Auerbach, one of its most vocal directors, revealed that ICANN attempted to 
    do just that when it established an unreasonable policy that placed 
    conditions on board-of-director access to its own corporate records.
    
    While Mr. Auerbach may not find any smoking guns within that documentation 
    now that he has been granted unconditional access, it turns out the real 
    ICANN smoking gun is out in the open for all to see.
    
    Mr. Auerbach was elected to the ICANN board in 2000 as the public's 
    representative for Canada and the United States. He ran on a platform that 
    criticized ICANN and vowed reform. Soon after his election, he requested 
    access to the corporation's records, as was his right under California law. 
    ICANN took months to respond, eventually setting conditions on access that 
    Mr. Auerbach believed were contrary to the law. When neither side would 
    back down, Mr. Auerbach sued for the right to access the documentation 
    without any strings attached.
    
    Mr. Auerbach's position was that California law granted him the right to 
    review ICANN's corporate records. He emphasized that the raison d'etre of a 
    board of directors is to function as an independent oversight committee 
    over management and it was therefore inappropriate for those inside to set 
    conditions on the gatekeeper.
    
    Mr. Auerbach proposed an approach whereby ICANN would have up to seven days 
    to challenge his desire to disclose a confidential document. In response, 
    ICANN chief executive officer Stuart Lynn said it was "inappropriate to 
    force ICANN to vindicate its rights" rather than obliging Mr. Auerbach to 
    seek permission for the disclosures.
    
    Following a brief hearing, the judge sided with Mr. Auerbach, adopting his 
    plan with one small modification that set the time limit to contest a 
    decision at 10 days rather than seven. She went on to order ICANN to 
    provide Mr. Auerbach with copies of all confidential documentation by Aug. 9.
    
    While this aspect of the decision is obviously important, viewing this case 
    as merely about arcane corporate law is to miss its greater significance. 
    Far more important is what is revealed about the mindset of ICANN's board 
    and senior management.
    
    First, the decision challenges the notion that ICANN's critics should be 
    viewed with suspicion. ICANN peppered its argument with inferences that Mr. 
    Auerbach was somehow dangerous. In fact, in its final memo to the court, it 
    argued that its conditions were particularly reasonable in relation to Mr. 
    Auerbach since he had publicly attacked ICANN.
    
    The judge ruled that ICANN got the matter backward, noting that Mr. 
    Auerbach was elected to ICANN precisely because of his criticisms. The law 
    is particularly designed to protect directors such Mr. Auerbach, since its 
    very purpose is to assist critical or minority directors who might 
    otherwise be denied access to documents by management who are reluctant to 
    provide fodder for further criticism.
    
    Second, the decision affirms the duty for ICANN to act on behalf of the 
    international public interest, a perspective that sometimes appears lost on 
    ICANN's management. During the hearing, ICANN argued that public companies 
    such as Microsoft and IBM do not post accounting data on the Internet and 
    that it was unfair to ask ICANN to do so. Once again, the judge responded 
    critically, noting that ICANN was a public benefit corporation with a duty 
    to the international community -- making it a much different entity than 
    from those corporate giants.
    
    Third, the decision highlights the extent to which the current ICANN board 
    has been content to let management run the show without taking the active 
    approach expected of an oversight body. Referring to the fact that Mr. 
    Auerbach was the first ICANN director to request a review of its 
    documentation, the judge lamented that that was a "sad statement."
    
    As ICANN races toward a reform process that will eliminate directors such 
    as Karl Auerbach, this legal saga suggests the reform is misplaced. It is 
    not ICANN's processes that are the problem -- it is a management that seeks 
    to curtail criticism and transparency along with a board that quietly 
    allows it to do so. That is ICANN's real smoking gun and no disclosure 
    agreement is needed to see it.
    -- 
    **********************************************************************
    Professor Michael A. Geist
    University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
    57 Louis Pasteur St., P.O. Box 450, Stn. A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
    Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319     Fax: 613-562-5124
    mgeistat_private              http://www.lawbytes.ca
    
    BNA's Internet Law News - http://www.bna.com/ilaw
    G & M Cyberlaw column - http://www.globetechnology.com
    Internet Law Text - http://www.captus.com/Information/inetlaw-flyer.htm
    Canadian Internet Law Resource Page (CILRP) at: http://www.cilrp.org/
    ICANN UDRP Info at http://www.udrpinfo.com
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 08 2002 - 23:41:48 PDT