Snail-mail from ICANN

I received a strange e-mail message today from Nicole Bihari, executive assistant to ICANN General Counsel and Corporate Secretary John Jeffrey, forwarding (by e-mail) a PDF file of a scanned image of a letter supposedly sent to me today by snail-mail.

Why ICANN chose this particular kludge of a mode of communication wasn't explained, but since the letter hasn't yet been posted on the ICANN Web site (it probably will be after ICANN reads this article), I'm posting a copy here .

Mr. Jeffrey's latest letter suggests that ICANN's Board of Directors intends -- if ICANN ever follows through on its purported promise to allow an independent review of their lack of openness and transparency -- to disclaim any responsibility for the actions of ICANN's staff, as a way to evade the jurisdiction of the independent review panel.

More immediately, Mr. Jeffrey refuses to take any action on my request for independent review, claiming that my request "does not meet the guidelines required by the ICDR procedures and therefore cannot be considered a formal IRP request sufficient to forward to the ICDR."

It's difficult, of course, to comply with procedures that don't exist. Mr. Jeffrey's latest letter acknowledges receipt of my latest e-mail message to him, but entirely fails to acknowledge or respond to what my message said: ICANN hasn't ever properly designated the ICDR or anyone else as its independent review provider (IRP), and has no properly-adopted procedures for independent review, as it is required to have.

The first step toward actually being able to refer my request to an IRP -- as ICANN has promised to do -- would be for ICANN to begin the process of designating an IRP and developing procedures for independent review. There's no mention in Mr. Jeffrey's meesage of any of these issues, or of any such actions.

My request for independent review remains pending, and ICANN remains in breach of its bylaws and its contractual commitment to the USA Department of Commerce to provide a mechanism for independent review of its compliance with its self-imposed procedural rules.

For good measure, Mr. Jeffrey throws in a bold-faced threat that if I actually attempt to (which I haven't), and am permitted to, register a ".travel" domain name, that will deprive me of any "interest" in ICANN decision on ".travel, and any right to independent review of that decision. It's a typical corporate capitalist attitude that only understands commercial interests and uses of the Internet, and can't imagine that I (or anyone else) would have any interest in ".travel" as a journalist, a traveller, or anyone other than a seller of travel services.

I'll be responding to Mr. Jeffrey, and ICANN, shortly.

In the meantime:

Tralliance Corp., ICANN's delegate to run the ".travel" franchise, has posted an unusual admission -- even before the completion of Tralliance's phased roll-out of the new domain name -- that even the travel "industry" (the only organization or interest group allowed to register ".travel" domain names) has doubts both about the value of ".travel" and about Tralliance as its operator.

The memo is prominently linked from the Tralliance home page and appears to be directed at potential ".travel" registrants:

[A] spirited discussion has developed surrounding the value of .travel and the viability of its success. The .travel critics have spoken.... There are those who allege that .travel is just a money grab by a couple of opportunistic entrepreneurs.

Presumably this last line refers to Michael Egan and Edward Cespedes, principals of Florida-based tour operator Certified Vacations , who as "E & C Capital Partners II, LLLP" hold convertible notes redeemable for a controlling interest in TheGlobe.com/Voiceglo.com, of which Tralliance Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary. Yes, ".travel" is now controlled by the owners of one Florida tour operator. No wonder the rest of the travel "industry" has doubts about whose interests it serves.

The further implication is that ".travel" registrations are lagging far behind Tralliance's rosy predictions -- as have registrations in the rest of the sponsored top-level domains now up for renewal, including ".aero" for the airline industry.

ICANN is currently soliciting comments on whether the ".aero" franchise to trade association SITA should be renewed, or on what terms. (What, if anything, ICANN will do with those comments is another question.) Comments can be sent to aero-renewal@icann.org through 4 February 2006; the one comment and one piece of spam received to date are posted here on the ICANN Web site.

[Addendum, 19 January 2006: More from John Levine on the lack of interest by potential travel industry registrants in ".aero" and ".travel".]

USA government goal: Gather and use "Travel Intelligence"

At a joint news conference today in Washington, DC, USA Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a joint vision to "Develop and use 'Travel Intelligence' before travelers arrive" in the USA (and after, it appears from the descriptions of the planned programs).

It's not clear that this newly-announced "vision" is anything really new, but it is the most explicit acknowledgement yet of the USA government's intention to create a comprehensive system of surveillance of travellers , wherever they go and by whatever means they travel.

While today's announcement brought out the common surveillance and travel control purposes behind a wide range of initiatives by both federal government Departments (Homeland Security and State), including "An Enhanced Partnership with the Private Sector", it failed to mention the extent to which the transportation industry is being compelled by the government to spend billions of dollars to build surveillance capabilities into its infrastructure -- just as has the communications industry under laws like the Communications Assistance to law Enforcement Act (CALEA), and over similarly strong industry protests at these unfunded mandates.

(Neither the communications nor transportation industry, unfortunately, has stood up for their customers against these surveillance mandates on privacy or civil liberties grounds. Industry has objected only on the basis of their own financial interests, making it easy for government to buy their support by giving them free use for their marketing and other commercial purposes of the data coerced from their customers by government order.)

The one seeming "concession" today was the announcement that a new alternative identity credential would be made available to those wishing to cross the USA-Mexico and/or USA-Canada borders without a passport. The USA government has thus "backed down" from its previously-adopted requirment for all border crossers to have passports by 2008. The new " biometric passport card" will supposedly be cheaper than a regular passport, but there's no indication that it will be any easier to obtain, less susceptible to government or commercial misuse for surveillance, or in any other way less of a burden on travellers than a standard passport.