Ellen and all,
Nice report. Thank you for sharing it. I look forward to others
reports as well.... >;)
Ellen Rony wrote:
> 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.
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
