Esther,
> I make trade-offs, as we all (most of us) do.
Yesterday, Ronda mentioned the 3/98 HR committee hearing.
Supposing the points made there to be still relevant to ICANNs
mandate and methodology, Ive borrowed a few quotes from the
transcript (at
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
y090140_0.htm ) and have interpolated 8 questions for you.
Charles Pickering says,
[W]e need to keep in mind that our goal is not simply to transfer
the DNS to the private system just to get it out of the hands of the
U.S. Government. For years the U.S. Government, through the
National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, has been an excellent steward of the Internet.
The American taxpayer has put quite a bit of money behind this
project, and we have to ensure that the investment is not harmed
during this transition.
Lastly, we need to remember that the most important people, in
terms of the Internet, are the actual end-users. That is the Internet
user at his or her desk in Houston or Los Angeles or Jackson,
Mississippi, home of the largest Internet provider today. I think all
of us agree that our decisions on this topic must be made with the
best interests of the individual Internet user in mind...
[Q 1. If we suppose his "actual end-users" are at least some of
your "little guys," can you say with whom you are compromising
their "most important" interests, and why those compromises are
necessary?]
=============
Robert Kahn says,
In my view, the Internet is not really in any crisis. It's not in danger
of any immediate failure and, basically, any tact on our part to try
and make some premature decisions seems to me is ill-founded.
We really do have the time to consider these issues.
[Q. 2. Can you tell us how the timetable was set for the various
decision which the interim board has made (particularly in the light
of point #5 of ICANNs FAQ, "... it seems desirable to set artificial
deadlines to encourage early action on the formation of the
constituencies") and how these help the little guy? ]
... A critical part of this is to systematically structure a process by
which we can get the use from as many of the relevant parties as
possible, not just using mechanisms like e-mail for comment, but I
would think we should get the international community and as
many of those who have chosen to weigh-in�who have chosen not
to weigh-in yet�as we can and to do it with more deliberate
interactions between the parties. I think this will actually help
determine a long-term, stable solution of Internet governance.
[...]
*In addition* to the overall goal of stability in the Internet, other
specific goals should be to ensure integrity in the management of
the Internet addresses, the numbers; openness in the standards
process; and, competition in services so the Internet can continue
to evolve and thrive.
[Q. 3-5. Can you say what you have done on the board to get
"those who have not chosen to weigh in" to do so? (How many
attendees at your international meetings did *not have e-mail
access?) Can you say why ICANNs comment boards are not even
e-mail lists, but are accessible only by Web browser, even though
listserver software is one of the most fully developed internet
applications available to the "actual end-user"? What have you
done to keep the *additional* points from overriding the "critical
part"?]
=========
Dave Farber says,
Any foundation for governance of the Internet must support
fundamental human rights, a free expression, free association, due
process, and nondiscriminatory administration. What may not be
obvious at first glance, the management of the domain naming
system impacts greatly on these basic human rights. It's through
network addresses and domain names that organizations place
their speech on the Internet. And it's through these addresses that
others can locate this speech. It is easy for those responsible for
administrating basic Internet functions to loose sight of this and to
act in ways that unnecessarily burden the ability to exercise free
speech. Already censorship has appeared in arbitrary and uneven
manners on the network, and it is damaging our rights to speak.
[...]
Sitting on the net and watching, over the last 6 months, this debate
take place, reminds me of a set of people launching a nuclear
missiles at each other via e-mail. There's been, I think, inadequate
opportunity for people to actually sit down in a relatively neutral
setting and actually talk to each other. That's unfortunate. The e-
mail sometimes gets so hot, my computer melts, and that's not
productive.
In a sense, what we need is an organization that can � a
mechanism, not an organization � which can pull together the
stakeholders. One of the problems that I always have is, when you
say a private enterprise, not-for-profit will take over, the problem is
that there are a lot of people who want to establish that right now,
and that's part of the basic problem. There's no way of getting
together and saying, ''Yes, that's a good idea, let's get together and
decide how to do it.''
[This point is reinforced by an unidentified Mr Ehlers:]
Also, the comment that was made about the people who really
need to be involved and should be involved, often don't have either
the time or the inclination to send e-mail or to engage in these
battles is very true. I've been involved in the peacemaker's role
often�and so far I haven't been shot, cursed, perhaps, but not
shot�but that's a role that often we can play very effectively, and
getting together the right people.
And that's the key, identifying the people who should be around the
table, getting them around the table and serving as mediators. I'm
sure that Mr. Magaziner can play that same role, as well. But that,
I think, is a good informal function of government and I've seen it
work many times, and work very, very effectively. So I hope that in
this case, also, it will be successful.
[Q. 6-8. Do you agree that "getting people around the table" is a
good idea? Can you explain why the Board has not adopted the
proposals you have doubtless made to it repeatedly, to use the
facilities of the Internet to involve the "most important people"? Do
you think that, if established government is not to have even an
oversight capacity, more can be done to "represent" this good
informal function of government?]
As one of the little guys, weighing your continuing representation of
my interests, I look forward to your considered replies.
kerry miller
