ICANN Manipulating Stock Prices

What are your primary concerns? Can you carefully articulate them point by point? Your current articles have a "scorched earth" feel about them. Do you think it would be possible to capture your concerns using a less combative tone? I worry that people will discount your contributions given the agressive timbre. Perhaps we could chat about the most effective way to communicate your concerns on Talk:ICANN_Manipulating_Stock_Prices? -- BrandonCsSanders 21:37, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

As May 99 turned to June, on the 7th Mike Roberts wrote to Mike Nelson, Roger Cochetti and Vint Cerf, that ICANN was in danger of going broke. Vint responded to the message:

"Folks, I have talked with John Sidgmore. We will try to get $500K at least "backup" in case nothing else in the way of fundraising works. Mike Nelson, I have copied John Patrick and Irving Wladawsky-Berger [Editor: an IBM e-commerce executive. See section below on Chris Caine and Berger] on this message, as well as John Sidgmore. If IBM and MCI Worldcom can come up with $1M in "bridge" funding, to be paid back at a later time under reasonable terms that will not harm ICANN, then perhaps we can begin a new fundraising campaign knowing that we have the ability to back up the campaign with a rescue effort in the short term. It will be easier for John Sidgmore to make the case to the MCI WorldCom management if IBM is willing to go into this with us and split the $1M cost. Is it possible?"

"I would then launch a campaign with GIP, ITAA, Internet Society, and other interested groups on the basis that ICANN must succeed or Internet will be in jeopardy. This ought to play well with any company whose stock price is dependent on a well-functioning Internet." "Thoughts?"

The next day IBM’s and the GIP’s John Patrick writes: "ICANN is trying to get the policy, technical and financial aspects of the Internet moved successfully from U.S. government to the international private sector. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. In fact, I would say that the future of the Internet is dependent on the execution of the plan." And on June 13th to venture capitalists Patrick comes on with great urgency: "Not sound alarmist, but if ICANN fails e-business/e-anything is in jeopardy. This means your future investments and your past ones."

Tony Rutkowski later commented on BWG a private mailing list for the discussion of ICANN related issues... : "ICANN appears to have been created, manipulated, and propped up substantially by John Patrick and Vint Cerf who have never had any public accountability. "I’m not aware that either has ever publicly explained what they are doing and why, much less participated in any forum - electronic or otherwise - where anyone substantively knowledgeable could interact with them. Indeed, it has long made a mockery out of all these public discussion and even the government’s own public processes, when the real deals were all being worked out behind the scenes by others to meet their unknown objectives. Has anyone been able to ever engage them on these matters or heard an explanation?"

Tony puts his finger squarely on the problem. ICANN represents a handful of powerful people who have been able to build an organization unaccountable to anyone but themselves. The two key players, Cerf and Patrick, warn that the Internet and e-

Commerce will crash and burn without ICANN yet despite repeated requests to explain, justify and defend their positions in public fora they refuse to do so. One would think that if they had publicly defensible positions, they would have made their case for them long ago.