Stef and all, Thank you for passing this post along Stef, it is indeed interesting and contains so interesting an potentially useful ideas. >;) I would like to expound on one of those ideas that has been mentioned many times before by others and I had spoken to Mike Roberts about once on the phone to little avail. Andy mentioned below that "The problem is not that there are so few at this meeting but that there are so few such meetings. There should be hundreds around the world!" I agree with this statement entirely. In addition most of these meetings have been in Boston or Washington or some other locals that are not necessarily reachable by many of the participants in these discussions and have also been announced more often than not in very short time frames for which folks can do their planning in order to attend. In addition I had contacted Mike Roberts regarding having many such meeting all over the US, Europe, asia and the African, he basically slufed me off at that suggestion. This sort of mantra seems the modus oprendi of the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board in general. Einar Stefferud wrote: > To ORSC: > > I got this from a CPSR member who thought it might be useful to us. > > I agree that it is interesting and useful...\Cheers...\Stef > > ------- Forwarded Message > > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:35:56 -0500 > From: Andy Oram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Notes from ICANN membership discussion > > I attended the meeting that discussed membership in the domain-name > corporation, ICANN, on Saturday. This meeting is interesting mostly because > it tries to create a new worldwide organization starting at ground zero > that represents the interests of potentially everyone in the world -- those > with Internet access and those without. The problems of such an > organization are enormous; possibilities for corruption and capture are > legion and the definition of true democratic participation is murky. > > Transcripts from Saturday's meeting haven't been posted yet on the Web site > of the Berkman Center (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/workshop.html) who > hosted the event. So I'll write up brief comments here. While the full > comments probably interest only a few people, I'm sending them to numerous > CPSR lists; feel free to send them to other interested people. They're just > my personal impressions. I'll also detail my interventions. I do not find > any material for an article in the meeting. > > Some useful URLs on ICANN and membership are at the end. > > I should make a general comment at the beginning: the formulation of ICANN > policy is quite top-down and from my point of view arbitrary, despite the > visible participation of Esther Dyson and other key people at open meetings > like the one on Saturday. ICANN and the U.S. government tend to make > decisions and the rest of us follow along. For instance, Berkman director > Jonathan Zittrain started Saturday's meeting by saying that ICANN exists > and this is not the forum to debate whether it should exist -- although > that debate was raging a couple months ago and never entirely went away. > Even while grudgingly accepting ICANN, many opponents criticized the > institution of Supporting Organizations: subgroups of ICANN that are > vaguely defined as technical advisory committees but in fact would make > most policy decisions if the current plan is carried out. Still, Stef and > others are now working within the boundaries of the plan that defined SOs. > > Only the two eternal gadflies, Rhonda and Jay Hauben, challenge the whole > premise of privatizing the domain-name administrative function and every > step taken since then. I do not agree with their alternative suggestions, > and often find their participation as tiresome as the more conservative > attendees, but I am glad they're there to make us re-examine first principles. > > There were about 45 attendees, a low figure that disappointed some people. > (I don't know whether the Berkman organizers were happy with attendance.) > Many were Boston-area folks who haven't been heavily involved in ICANN > discussions, although the vast majority considered themselves "immersed" in > the issue. I think the number of attendees is not important; what's > important is that we did serious work. As one attendee from W3C put it, > "The problem is not that there are so few at this meeting but that there > are so few such meetings. There should be hundreds around the world!" > > First, panelists from several interest groups spoke. They were an excellent > collection of organizations interested in these issues (Association of > Internet Professionals, ACM, Common Cause, ISOC, IETF, International > Trademark Association, the Citizens Advocacy Center (a grassroots Illinos > governance public interest group), and the Massachusetts Municipal > Association). But as political scientist Elaine Karmarck pointed out later, > these were all special interest groups, characterized as being voluntary > organizations of like-minded people who have no power of enforcement over > laws and resources. So ICANN is very different. > > Unfortunately, I had to leave for an errand so I didn't hear much of what > the panelists had to say. One statement by the former director of Common > Cause was very relevant. He said that Common Cause was routinely beset by > questions of internal governance, policy, and power, usually "between > activists and leadership" (can you imagine such a thing!) or "between > activists and other activists." He pointed out that an organization whose > job is to examine governance issues cannot avoid such conflicts. > > One foreign attendee pointed out that the models proposed for ICANN > membership were based on U.S. experiences, or at least an Anglo-American > type of organization. But he admitted that nearly all international > organizations are based on Anglo-American models. The only exception he > could think of was the Catholic Church, which is not the place to start > when you're looking for a democratic model. > > Who is a member? > - ---------------- > > There were three break-out sessions. I chose to attend the one on "Who > is/should be a member of ICANN?" Not only is it a central question for > ICANN, but the workshop was led by the well-known and highly-respected > Berkman law professor Tamar Frankel, whom I wanted to see in action. > > The session started with a suggestion popular among many participants > (mostly non-U.S. ones): that ICANN be arranged partly or wholy around > national chapters. These are subject to capture because in each country one > powerful force will tend to dominate the chapter. But as one participant > pointed out, at least the interest groups in each country know each other > and are used to battling it out within national organizations. > > Still, there was fear (especially where developing countries were > concerned) that a national chapter would be the creature of a single > organization, such as the dominant Internet service provider. (Among other > people, this was said by Ghanian advisory committee member Nii Qmaynor, who > should be in a position to know because he runs an ISP in Ghana.) But as > the Internet develops and online users develop the kind of consciousness > that many U.S. users have, national chapters may become more viable. > > At this point I succeeded in bringing discussion back to our main point. I > said that we could create many different structures for membership, but the > problems of national chapter just underlines that we have to address the > question in the title of the workshop, "Who is/should be a member of ICANN?" > > A couple people liked individual memberships. They said there is no reason > for corporations or non-profits to be represented; each such organization > consists of individuals who should join and vote for that organization's > views if he so desires. One member of the advisory committee on membership, > Daniel Kaplan of France, scoffed "in an ideal world!" > > Most people thought that organizational memberships were valuable. Most > individuals don't want to do all the research and go through the process of > personal membership; they want to be represented by their organization. > > Some organizations would be on the Supporting Organizations. But others are > not immersed enough in ICANN issues to be on an SO; they would be at-large > members or perhaps even non-voting at-large members. The category of > "non-voting member" would be useful if it gives the member a right to get a > formal answer to a concern. > > There was also some consideration that some groups (such as domain-name > holders) could become automatic members of ICANN. Someone pointed out that > this policy would not make a domain holder any more likely to participate; > anyone interested in participating would be willing to join formally. > > The institution of SOs (which I believe it creates many problems) > complicates the membership question because it could lead to dual > representation. What if an organization or individual joins an SO and also > becomes an at-large member, voting for Board members in both capacities? On > the other hand, we don't want to require that every individual reveal the > organizations he or she is in; that's a violation of privacy. > > Even aside from the SOs, there's a big open question about how to weight > votes. Some people say that every member should have one vote, whether that > member is a high school kid or IBM. Others suggested that individuals' > votes be tallied separately from organizations' votes or nations' votes or > whatever -- but we still don't know how to weight the votes against one > another. > > Michael Sondow suggested that organizations be subdivided into commercial > versus non-commercial organizations. This led to an interesting > philosophical debate in which Dyson got to expound upon some of her > Internet vision. She said the Internet blurs the distinction between > commercial and non-commercial user to the point where it's irrelevant. A > non-commercial user may suddenly decide to put something up for sale or > become a consultant. > > One could break down the Board by classes (organizations vote for one > member, individuals for another, etc.). One person pointed out that this > would constrain choices for the Board too much. We are already committed to > geographic diversity and to setting aside Board members for SOs. How many > different ways can you slice the pool of available candidates? > > Dyson made some comments in this session that were notable both for being > quite eloquent and for showing some of her personal concerns that may not > correspond to the reality of how ICANN would act. > > Thus, she said there was "too much focus on voting and not enough focus on > discussion." She seemed to be saying that people wouldn't worry so much > about the fairness of the voting system if they really felt "heard" by the > Board and SOs. I find that overly optimistic, and others pointed out that > we have to focus on voting because that's the only clear right members > have. But she did make the very good point that membership to SOs has to be > open. Otherwise, the SOs would not be accepted by the at-large members and > all the decisions proposed by SOs would be invalid; the serious battles > would simply be bumped up from the SOs to the Board. > > The final suggestion of this panel was that we leave matters open for > revision. We could put an explicit time-limit on any chosen solution, so > that it has to be revisited and reaffirmed in a few years. In any case, > ICANN must be willing to throw out a membership model if it is found not to > be working. (This doesn't address the problem of capture.) > > Capture > - ------- > > This leads to the next panel, whose results I heard summarized in the full > session later. Most people were afraid the U.S. would capture ICANN -- if > in fact it hasn't done so already. Capture is to be feared from nations, > from commercial interests, from the current board, from SOs, and from > individuals. > > The main defense against capture is transparency. It's not perfect, of > course, because the membership could be captured, so transparency wouldn't > lead to revolt. > > There was a very speculative and perhaps even silly discussion of different > possible types of capture and what would happen. What if China bought up > millions of votes and tried to enforce censorship? What if Microsoft > dominated the Board and terminated the .fr domain because the French > government took anti-Microsoft positions? > > Ultimately, according to several people (notably Scott Bradner of IETF), > ICANN's power depends on the cooperation of the organizations that carry > out its decisions. If the Board does something too outrageous, there will > be a grass-roots revolt that essentially invalidates its decisions. Jay > Fenello pointed out that power may lie with organizations that handle > protocols or hand out Internet addresses, but that in the critical > domain-name area the powers of those organizations are less clear. Jean > Camp said that ICANN couldn't enforce its will because it "has no police -- > just economic power." I have to admit that I don't see the distinction as > being significant. > > I made a suggestion later that might not have been understood; I'd like > advice about whether to pursue it. I pointed out that no matter how > wonderful a membership structure we create, most members will go back to > there day jobs and take on a passive role after the main ICANN questions > are decided -- whether or not we like the decisions. What happens if a > couple watchdog members decide ICANN is doing something rotten? How do they > rouse the rest of the membership? Do they have to obtain member mailing > lists and spam everybody with a manifesto? Do they have fora for presenting > their views, and will members listen? In short, I said, we must design > support for faction fights into ICANN, as unpleasant as that sounds. > > Lessig didn't quite understand what I was saying, so I wonder if other > people didn't either. A member of the panel said later essentially the same > thing I said about most members becoming apathetic -- but he seemed to > think that was a good development and just showed that ICANN was successful. > > Several people said that the courts could get involved (that members could > sue an unresponsive Board) and Jean Camp went so far as to say that tests > would be inevitable. > > How should directors be nominated and elected? > - ---------------------------------------------- > > This break-out session came up with a process for nomination and minimal > requirements that seemed quite reasonable. > > Wrap-up > - ------- > > I couldn't stay till the end, but during this period Dyson made the most > sweeping statement of the day, and one that I think we could debate for a > long time. The Haubens had made several complaints about the U.S. > government turning domain name administration over to a private > corporation. Dyson answered, "We are not a private entity, we are a public > one. All this is not an attempt to get the consent of the governed [a > phrase used over and over in earlier meetings and emails] but to be a > creation of the governed. The Domain Name System has always worked because > of implicit agreement, and now we're trying to continue that. We're neither > starting a revolution or stating the divine right of kings; we're trying to > put the earlier consensus on a more formal basis." Beautiful thoughts, but > that's not how ICANN was created or is being run today. > > --- > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/index.html > Representation in Cyberspace Study: Berkman Center for Internet & Society > at Harvard Law School > > http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/web/current-domain.html > Registration of Internet domain names > (contains pointers to all CPSR submissions) > > http://www.witsa.org/press/domain.htm > International Domain Names Meeting Press Kit > > http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/ar/dns_newcorp.html > Historic First Meeting of the Internet Names and Numbers Corporation > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andy Oram O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Editor 90 Sherman Street phone: (617) 499-7479 > Cambridge, MA 02140-3233 fax: (617) 661-1116 > USA http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/ > Stories at Web site: The Bug in the Seven Modules, Code the Obscure > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------- End of Forwarded Message Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
