We had a good turnout for a two-hour meeting with Esther Dyson (ED). 18
people gathered in the spacious downtown San Francisco conference room of
Bronson & Bronson to talk informally with the chair of ICANN. The group
included ISPs, attorneys, system administrators, programmers, Internet
consultants and newbies (see attendee list at end of message). We came
from near (Bay Area) and far (Southern California and Oregon). Clearly,
concerns about ICANN's activities and Esther's appearance have drawing
power.
During a social gathering before the meeting, we aired our concerns and
agreed to focus on several major questions and suggest some concrete,
positive improvements to the process rather than putting Esther or ICANN on
the defensive.
The following report is from my written notes, presented in the spirit of
openness. It's reportorial rather than reflective. My own personal
observation is that Esther was more candid and less circumspect than I had
expected. The discussion was civil, the concerns were diverse but on
point, and I believe we all left better informed than when we arrived.
The first questioner spoke as the voice of "moral indigation" with a
concern about a lack of moral leadership. He said that the touchsones of
this privatization process have been openness and transparency but instead,
ICANN is being run on the model of a closed-for-profit business. He said
that if the board members couldn't handle an open process, they shouldn't
have accepted the role, and he urged Esther to be a voice of moral
authority and guidance to the other board members. He also warned that the
PSO represents an outright grab for authority by a small group assuming
"justice for just us" and noted the hubris of that group.
Esther explained that the initial board did not know what it signed up for
and they are trying to replace themselves [by establishing a membership
structure & vote] as soon as possible. The Board was chosen because it was
not part of the DNS wars. Culturally (particularly Europeans) don't "grok"
the American style of opennness. "I'm a big fan of openness", she said,
but sh can't tell the BOD what to do. "If something is very very wrong,
yes, I will resign because I have my reputation to guard, but we need to
give this process some time." She said there is a delicate balance between
ICANN, Internet interests, the PSO people, and... The arguments will
continue, but who wins them may change. She says that she and the board
have been learning along the way, learning to deal with NSI and the US
government and others.
Many months ago, Esther asked the Internet community to trust us-- ICANN,
and the next questioner asked what the ICANN board had done to enable us to
do so.
ED answered, "We haven't self-destructed". We changed the bylaws although
we aren't miracles of openness and light. We came out with a reasonable
DNSO structure and changed the accreditation guidelines in response to
community input. "We are tring to be lightweight, to create some
explicitness. You're seeing a function of the growing up of the Internet
and trying to figure out what is right."
Esther was asked what her view of the scope of ICANN is, that it appears to
be making business decisions, not just technical ones.
She said that ideally, the market would rule and such decisions wouldn't be
needed, but we are dealing with a legal monopoly and there needs to be some
mechanism to open it up.
Another questioner said ICANN was too focused on the here and now. "You're
establishing something that if done right will be the *first* international
authority that succeeds."
On the issue of how the new testbed registrars would be chosen and what
criteria would be applied in making the choice, ED said the responsibility
for picking the five will be delegated to staff, and those choices will be
subjected to BOD reconsideration. This raised concern in the room. Pressed
for the identity of "staff" (how many, who are they), she answered perhaps
three individuals, Mike Roberts, someone from Jones Day, which elicited
audience grumbles and a comment that the Internet community would be
displeased that the responsibility for this important decision would be
passed off to unknown individuals selected by an unelected board. Esther
answered that the BOD had no idea how many applications to expect, nor how
much material would accompany that, and would leave it to staff to read
through annual reports, etc. How is the staff supposed to judge among the
applications? She couldn't say what the criteria would be used in making
the selection, beyond the basic accreditation thresholds, but that the BOD
"didn't want people to write applications to win but rather to be
truthful."
Several people at the table said she shouldn't presume winning and being
truthful are mutually exclusive concepts.
Esther explained that the BOD would be looking for a mix of business models
and a geographical balance in the testbed selection. Also, "We are trying
to make it unpleasant to be in the testbed so that we can learn from it."
She said it was an iterative process. The reasons that individual
applications were accepted or denied would be made public. She said she
would consider identifying the staff members who made such recommendations.
The Independent Review Advisory Committee was being formed to a structure
for outside review of ICANN. She favored having three independent judges
with impeccable credentials.
The discussion moved next to the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) recommendations. She responded strongly to the suggestion that
ICANN would rubber stamp the WIPO recommendtions. She acknowledged that
there are some difficulties in the WIPO RFC-3 that she feels are troubling.
Pressed for more detail, she said practical issues -- "if you're some
little group and you happen to get into the maws of a large trademark
owner. . . " She said the BOD goal is an approach that is lightweight,
transparent, open and has consensus of the stakeholders -- U.S. government,
trademark interests, EFF, Michael Froomkin, big ISPs, Centraal, Internet
users such as her sisters, their doctors. . . .She explained, however, that
she has been focusing time on DNSO and other matters, not on the WIPO
recommendations, which haven't yet been finalized.
The issue of the Addressing Supporting Organization (ASO) came up next, and
how the developing documents were mishandled by ICANN. Esther was told
that ICANN will probably receive one consensus document, not multiple
proposals, and the one sent to ICANN was put in as a placeholder by CIX,
not as a formal proposal.
Esther said that there was no urgency about the ASO.
Concern was again expressed about an attempted capture of the PSO by
"Byzantine groups" and Esther was asked where that falls on ICANN's radar.
I didn't capture her response, but she described the IETF as fairly open
and (cryptically, IMHO) as an organization having a "permeable membrane
with an immune system inside". She explained, that ICANN does not want to
be a government organization or a treaty organization and it a bottom-up
structure. "We look pretty bottom-up to the governments who are watching
us with alarm."
Having flown in from the IETF meeting in Chicago, she said that IETF
proposed a structure of an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with other
parties to create a Protocol Council which, with a General Assembly, will
create a PSO. IETF is a big player in the Protocol Council she said.
Several people in the room explained that some campture has been attempting
to creep into the IETF process from large corporations who send 25 of their
engineers to sit in working groups.
Next question is why no more than two BOD reps from an SO can be from the
same geographic region. Does this represent geographic diversity at the
expense of Internet representation, by population or other factor? ED
admitted that it is cludgy and the she disagrees with the notion that
people represent whole coungries. "My goal would be for people to vote for
the best people wherever they came from."
A query followed about the fact that the Internet community doesn't know
the rest of the board because Esther is the only one who actively
participates on the lists. We don't know what are their concerns and their
individual views because meetings are held in secret. ED answered that the
PR agency would be interviewing each of the members so that we might get to
know these people better, but the call was clearly for more ICANN board
interaction, not filtration through the Ogilvy. She said the board members
are reluctant to interact because they don't want to be misinterpreted or
interpreted as speaking for board. The suggestion was for her to ask the
board members to post questions, so we know at least what are areas of
concern to them. Perhaps we will begin to see more board participation on
the lists through this approach.
Asked what would be the next major milestones for ICANN, she answered:
PSO, WIPO recommendations and membership in May in Berlin (although
membership may be deferred until August) -- [my note -- shouldn't
membership be the FIRST order of priority?] ASO in Santiago. Next year
DNSO will be talking about gTLDs, Root Server Committee will be talking, so
next year should be a significant one. The world at large in year 2000 will
undergo a technological crisis of confidence of some kind. There will be a
fundamental shift of concern about computer failures.
She was asked if the new board election would replace the initial board in
staggered terms and ED answered she wasn't certain but "if they could hold
elections, some members of the BOD might resign." She said that the BOD
would be looking for a new president through an executive search firm.
Esther was asked what would decisions would remain for the elected board to
do since the initial board was rushing through with so many changes. This
query was followed-up with a concern about the following statement in the
staff draft of the DNSO Bylaws Amendments:
"Section 2 (g) Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the
powers of the Board or the Corporation to act on matters not within the
scope of primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or to take
actions that the Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the
purposes of the Corporation."
ICANN has a specific mission. It should not function for mere
self-perpetuation, and several in the meeting suggested that the phrase "to
further the purposes of the Corporation" be removed or rewritten..
____________________________
Those I polled afterwards felt the time was well spent and that they had
benefitted in one way or another. We appreciated the opportunity to
discuss concerns face-to-face with Esther Dyson. (She even took home a grey
ribbon!).
Since this meeting resulted from my query about why ICANN has not held any
meetings on the West Coast or in the great, wired state of California, I
would personally like to thank Esther for arranging time (and giving us an
additional 30 minutes) in her packed schedule and for responding to our
diverse questions with apparent candor. I remain disappointed that the
other board members are not as forthcoming as their chair. Openness is
certainly a touchstone of this process, and I imagine it will be one of the
campaign issues when the membership gets to elect its own board. Before
ICANN's World Tour returns to the Atlantic Coast, I hope that the
residents on the Pacific side of our continent get a chance to meet the
full ICANN board.
Thanks also to Bronson & Bronson, with lovely offices and a conference room
that was perfect for this group. The logistics were set-up by Michael
Krieger, who also arranged to have the event hosted by the Intellectual
Property Section of the California Bar, which supplied delicious platters
of food. A surprise and appealing touch was the fine wine (Williamette
Pinot Noir, Merlot and his own spicy White Knuckle) brought in for the
occasion from Oregon by Arnold Gehring.
ATTENDEES
* Karl Auerbach - Internet curmudgeon, Cisco, boston Working Group
* David Ackerman
* Thomas J. Ackerman - Acting General Manager, Dir. Networks and Systems
Operations, California GLOBIX Corporation
* Esther Dyson - Chair, ICANN
* Sheri Lyn Falco, Esq. - IP attorney
* Arnold Gehring - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Patrick Greenwell - Director of Business Development, Centergate Research
LLC
* Bronwyn Harris - formerly of Delarue (?) in Europe
* Deb Howard - Executive Director, ISP/C
* Michael Krieger - attorney, Bronson & Bronson
* Roeland M.J. Meyer - Founder, Morgan Hill Software Company, a virtual ISP
* Justin Newton - Public Policy Director for ISP/C
* Brian Reid - Director, unnamed research lab
* Ellen Rony - Co-author, Domain Name Handbook and Boston Working Group
* William Sommers - Vice-president, ISP/C; SF ISP
* David Steele - Christie Parker & Hale LLP and Boston Working Group
* Wes Monroe - Christie Parker & Hale LLP
* Business associate or friend of Esther's
One no-show, whom you can guess (unless Brian Reid was correct about the
identity of the person lurking at the door).
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
======================== // =============================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
On the Internet, // \\ no one knows you're a dog.
