At 08:08 AM 7/23/99 , David Post wrote:
> >hearings were a great success even before they opened; does anyone thnk
> >that ICANN's more conciliatory tone over the past week or so (dropping
> >their $1 fee demand, agreeing to open up Board meetings) was not at
> >least partially triggered the call for hearings? And, more
Yes, I do. The clout of the DoC oversight is plenty by itself.
The ICANN board is composed of reasonably intelligent people and it doesn't
take a lot of smarts to know that concessions by ICANN improves DoC's
leverage over NSI. I doubt that the hearing were a forcing function at
all, frankly.
More significant about the hearings is the much-deserved public pummeling
of NSI.
THAT would not have happened without the hearings.
> >importantly, the fact that there were going to be hearings raised the
> >general level of awareness about these issues in the mainstream press
> >and elsewhere, generally increasing the amount of public discussion and
Perhaps, but there has been a large amount of coverage of this already.
> > But -- I don't believe that NSI poses the same kind of threat
> to the
> >Internet as a whole that ICANN does. A monopolist at the root level,
> >with control over the entire name/number space, is just a lot more
> >dangerous than a monopolist over a portion of that space, even the
An extremely well-funded, for-profit monopolist controlling a key portion
of the total is entirely capable of being as dangerous -- and probably more
so -- as a broadly-based, community-service organization providing
oversight to the whole.
In other words, your THEORY of differential power is probably correct.
However the REALITIES of composition, motivation and funding for the two
groups, ICANN board and NSI, suggest quite the opposite concern.
And that has been the problem all along: Pursue a wide range of academic,
theoretical, future fears, while ignoring current, pragmatic and serious
abuses.
ICANN is highly constrained in its scope and process. That one might
disagree with aspects of the current process is fine. However invoking the
specter of massive abuse by ICANN is simply not realistic, given the
diversity of the board, the degree of public interest and inspection, and
the formal constraints on its actions.
Pay attention to ICANN and suggest changes as it moves along? Yes.
Stymie its ability to make progress and, therefore, encourage the
flourishing of a commercial monopoly, to the direct detriment of the broad
user community? No.
> >this time -- NSI happens to be one of the few counterweights to ICANN's
> >power out there, and I worry a bit that weakening it too severely
> >inhibits achievement of that goal.
Given the difference in size of ICANN's funding base, versus NSI's, and
given the time, energy, and -- how shall I say this politely? -- "ethical
flexibility" in pursuing its goals that NSI has, it is a serious
misjudgment to call NSI only a counterweight.
It is a massive anchor preventing progress and pulling the ship down.
(The other, well-funded, well-organized block to progress is a portion of
the trademark community; oddly many of their fears are the result of
particular policies that NSI has had, which make the details of trademark
enforcement more difficult than they need to be.)
The ready dismissal of the rest of the public oversight and involvement in
ICANN is both simply wrong and an insult to all those involved.
> > ANSWERS THAT I WISH HAD BEEN PROVIDED AT THE HEARINGS
> > There was an extended discussion of NSI's unwillingness to
> "recognize"
> >ICANN by signing the accreditation agreement. [While everyone keeps
> >denying that ICANN has any sort of "governance" role, why do they keep
> >talking about whether they are "recognized"?] NSI took the position
While some people manage to impart "governance" meaning in all sorts of
trivial items, why is it that they do not, as well, put forward
alternatives that are pragmatic? (I should apologize. It's nasty to
require that suggestions actually be practical, since it makes the task of
formulating suggestions so much more difficult.)
> >saying "I'll get back to you on that." Maybe he should have said:
> >"Damn right -- because no one else is playing that role right now.
A cynical and highly incorrect view. Frankly it has the plaintive tone of
someone feeling that their PERSONAL role and power is not enough.
> >with NSI terminates). I believe that Commerce has been ill-served
> >throughout this process by an unnecessarily rapid timetable, and that
This is a particularly telling demonstration of historical (and legal and
marketing) ignorance.
Most of this topic has been the subject of intense community work for FIVE
YEARS. That it is new to SOME people is a measure of their lack of
historical involvement. Since we can always assume that new people will
get involved, must we always measure history in terms of the most recent
participants?
The legal ignorance is an impressive failure to recognize that the legal
instrument over NSI already expired and has been given an artificial
extension. The argument against blithely doing it indefinitely is
twofold. One is that more time buys NSI probably exponentially stronger
market position. The other is that the user community wanted competition
and more name space choice FIVE YEARS ago and more delay is more delay.
Those seeking the delay -- that is, those who are not overtly or covertly
NSI agents -- are treating this as an abstract academic exercise, with no
concern for the impact of that continued lack of competition and name choice.
> >yet. Mikki again hit the nail on the head: it would have been
> >illegitimate if we had tried to apply the laws of the US while the
> >Constitution was still being drafted and nobody was yet sure what this
> >"United States" was going to look like and how it could claim to be a
> >trustworthy repository of authority. Cart, meet horse.
That implies that there were no laws in operation for the intervening
years. Doesn't seem likely, does it? Why require a similar suspension of
daily progress here?
Theory, meet practise.
> > But I simply cannot believe it when I hear her say that "ICANN is
> >nothing more, or less, than the embodiment of the consensus of the
> >Internet community as a whole." [I think I got that quote correct off
> >of the webcast]. Should be, maybe -- but is? I cannot for the life of
> >me fathom how she could believe that ICANN's actions to date embody
> >some consensus of Internet users.
Because some participants have no interest in a real consensus
process. They will not discuss reasonably and they will not
compromise. Hence, they wail and decry, but do not contribute
constructively.
These people must be removed from the calculation of consensus. When you
remove them, you are left with a much more reasonable degree of agreement,
and yes, concerns.
> > Maybe its time for some new thinking about what "consensus" really
> >means. I think all would agree -- there is a "consensus"! -- that the
> >IETF operates by "consensus." Proposals are debated in public view,
The term for the IETF is "rough" consensus and the word rough has two
different semantic interpretations. We mean both of them.
We mean approximate and we mean difficult. All this storm and fury is not
unusual; part of the IETF practise is in learning to filter out the
distracting voices. That is something most ICANN critics have not
attempted to do.
> >within working groups that are SELF-ORGANIZED and OPEN TO ANYONE, not
> >via pre-defined "constituencies" that had specific "membership
Another good demonstration of failure to understand the IETF process
adequately.
Working groups go through a formal approval process and have chairs chosen
by area directors. In that sense, they are IDENTICAL to the constituency
process for ICANN.
> >qualifications." [I particularly loved the moment in the hearings
> >where Becky Burr of DoC was asked why Taiwan was excluded from ICANN's
> >Government Advisory Committee, and she explained that the ICANN By-laws
> >had recently been changed to allow "significant economies" to
> >participate, not just "governments" -- somehow I have to think that
> >such a "policy decision" never was made, never had to be made, within
> >the IETF [or NSI, for that matter -- another reason I'm less nervous
Alas, you are factually wrong again.
The IETF has repeatedly had to attend to matters of constituency, liaising,
etc.
> >about them than I am about ICANN . . . ] Proposals that achieve
> >"consensus" in these smaller groups are circulated to higher and higher
> >circles of the community, and eventually to the Community as a whole,
The IETF proposals are visible to the community from their beginnings, the
same as has been happening with ICANN.
I believe you are failing to distinguish between the question of visibility
and participation, versus decision-making. For the latter, there is a
process that starts at the lower level, namely the working group, and then
is subject to a veto-opportunity by the community and the Steering
Group. As with ICANN, the real work is to be done in the "lower" groups.
It should be noted that the upper-level decision meetings are NOT
OPEN. This permits much easier and frank discussion. The results are
still, very much accountable. Just the discussion is closed.
> >where they can be read and commented on by anyone over an extended
> >period of time. No votes are taken, participation at some face-to-face
Another factual error: Many votes are taken.
They are in the form of rough-consensus polls, and we refuse to call them
votes, but they serve the same primary purpose, namely to take an explicit
sense of approval from the community.
The Steering Group has explicit votes.
> >gathering does not entitle your voice to any greater weight than any
> >other, and majorities do not prevail. If ICANN is serious about
> >becoming a consensus-based operation -- and I still hope and assume
> >that it is -- it might start thinking about how to replicate this model
It would be a better suggestion for you to learn more detail about the
actual facts of IETF structure and operation.
You will discover that ICANN is similar. Not the same, no, but similar.
> >Joe Sims' email to the Department of Justice, which was made public at
> >the hearing and in which Sims reports that he "suggested" to DOJ that
> >it intervene in ICANN's negotiations with NSI and the Department of
>...
> > Curious, this. I don't quite know what to make of it.
> >"Ill-considered" is one adjective that springs to mind. Although I
Let me get this straight: ICANN and NSI are currently operating under DoC
oversight and ICANN is supposed to take on oversight of NSI. NSI is
proving intransigent to the process and ICANN asks the government to help
move NSI towards a productive outcome.
This is only and exactly what ICANN should be doing. It is asking its
nominative "boss" for help.
How is that ill-considered?
With respect to these sorts of proffered analyses of ICANN and "the
process", constructive criticism is a good thing. However it needs to have
a much, much better grasp of the facts than has been shown here, and it
needs to have a much, much better understanding of the pragmatics of
engineering a real-world group decision-process.
It also needs to worry more about real and existing problems than about
theoretical and future abuses.
For someone who places themselves into a position of watch-dog,
considerably better knowledge and balance should be expected.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
