Andy and all, Great piece here andy, and right on the money, so to speak! >;) Andy Oram wrote: > http://webreview.com/wr/pub/2000/02/18/platform/index.html > > [65]Platform Independent > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Would I Join This Club If It Would Have Me as a Member? > > by [66]Andy Oram > Feb. 18, 2000 > > Groucho Marx's well-known quip comes to mind when I consider signing up > for the [67]Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN). Although they initially opposed any membership structure, and > agreed to admit members only after considerable external pressure, the > ICANN Board is now revving up a [68]recruitment effort. They are > [69]supported by $200,000 from a well-respected philanthropic > foundation that promotes public access to communications, the > [70]Markle Foundation. > > Readers of this publication may find the invitation to join the General > Assembly enticing. After all, ICANN has made headlines as the first > organization dedicated entirely to setting policy on the Internet. Its > decisions (particularly in domain names) may directly concern you. But > before you join, read the fine print and think carefully about what > you're trying to achieve. > > I want to elect the ICANN Board > > Hold it right there. The word "elect" appears nowhere in the [71]bylaws > for the General Assembly. Members will not elect the Board directly, > but will "select" an At Large Council, ultimately to consist of six > people, who will then "select" representatives on the Board. A recent > [72]expert roundtable on ICANN membership uniformly condemned this > structure as detrimental to minorities and discouraging to everyone. > (Imagine that a bare majority--that is, half--of members select the At > Large Council and a bare majority--half--of the At Large Council select > Board representatives. In that case, a well-organized one-quarter of > the membership could end up controlling all representatives.) Following > the experts' advice will be a hard change for the current Board because > their choice had nothing to do with organizational structure; later I > will examine why they did it this way. > > But at least the General Assembly has indirect control over the Board > > Sorry, that's not true either. There are 18 Board members, of which the > General Assembly chooses only nine. The other nine are divided among > the Supporting Organizations, special interest groups that supported > the foundation of ICANN and can be counted on to support the current > Board's policies: > > * Three are chosen by the [73]Address Supporting Organization. This > consists of the regional Internet registries (APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE > NCC) that coordinate the distribution of IP addresses and were > involved in forming ICANN from the start. > > * Three are chosen by the [74]Protocol Supporting Organization. This > is made up of standard-setting bodies like the IETF, the W3C, and > telecommunications groups. Most of them, like the regional Internet > registries, were consulted before ICANN was formed and are lined up > behind the current Board. The bar for joining one of these > organizations is set pretty high, financially. Even though the IETF > is open and consensus-based, the average Webmaster is not going to > be able to walk into a meeting and start making policy. > > * The final three are chosen by the [75]Domain Name Supporting > Organization. Its power lies in its Names Council, which represent > (once again) the special interests or "constituencies" that for the > most part were brought into the ICANN process long ago: registries, > registrars, trademark holders, and large companies. (A modicum of > dissent might be heard from the ISP and Non-Commercial Domain Name > Holder constituencies.) > > So nine of the 18 Board members are firmly in the camp of the current > Board. Even if you pulled off the greatest organizing drive the world > has ever seen and managed to get people devoted to change as all nine > of your Board representatives, you'd still lose key Board decisions. > The reason? There's a 19th vote, and it goes to...the President of the > Board. > > Well, I'll get more information as a member > > Don't count on it. ICANN is very parsimonious with information. While > they maintain a mailing list, official responses to comments are rare. > They used to post comments on a web page with an incongruously folksy > name ("[76]Community Feedback") but nothing has been added since the > middle of last December. > > In my research of Internet policy over the years, I've had the pleasure > of reading numerous court orders, FCC notices, and other official > government documents. These works are impressive historic documents > that exhaustively consider every point raised by all sides, bring in > the background that applies to each point, and carefully lay out the > reasoning that leads to a final decision. Nothing like this appears in > ICANN public documents. They are terse bulletins that list decisions > made and brief technical justifications. > > Provisions for member-to-member communication are also vague. (Section > 3 requires ICANN to "provide a method for Members to communicate with > other Members in such ways and under such circumstances as the Board > determines are appropriate and desirable.") > > Many non-profit organizations let members vote on by-law changes, > examine accounting books, and so forth. If ICANN members were allowed > to elect its Board, they'd have the same rights. But the trick of > setting up an intermediate At Large Council allows ICANN, by the laws > governing non-profit corporations in the state of California where it > is incorporated, to withhold such basic rights of membership. The > ramifications are all laid out in an unofficial [77]analysis on the > ICANN web site. In short, the Board chose indirect voting in order to > withhold common powers from members. > > So is there anything I can do as a member? > > Not now. The General Assembly doesn't take any action until it has > 5,000 members. That means that, even if you accept the advisory role of > the Assembly and sign up today, you'll have to twiddle your thumbs > until another 4,999 er...optimists make the same choice. > > When ICANN does formalize the role of the General Assembly, though, you > may find yourself footing the bill for ICANN's complex, multi-leveled > structure and its commitment to hold meetings on every continent around > the world, habits that have driven it to the brink of bankruptcy three > times. > > To hell with it, I'll join the Domain Name Supporting Organization instead > > Yes, ICANN's by-laws require a General Assembly for the [78]DNSO too. > Perhaps you'll be tempted to focus your attention there, because domain > names lead to more policy disputes than IP addresses or protocols. But > it is an almost foregone conclusion that the DNSO General Assembly will > be dominated by the same interests that control its constituencies, and > who together choose its governing Names Council. > > The General Assembly meets only once a year. Its chair is chosen not by > its members, but by the Names Council. Members of the General Assembly > nominate representatives to ICANN's board, but it is the Names Council > that actually decides which nominees become representatives. And only > the Names Council can propose actions to ICANN's Board. The General > Assembly has recently suffered the resignations of several ICANN > challengers who have given up on it as a forum for expressing dissent. > > Is there any positive role one can play vis-a-vis ICANN? > > In the movie Horse Feathers, Groucho Marx's signature song goes, > "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It." Often ICANN critics are accused of > harboring this attitude, but for my part I reject the characterization. > Despite the lack of transparency, ICANN has been found to bend in > response to criticism. Many policies have been compromises among > various forces. The most prominent example is the [79]Uniform Dispute > Resolution Policy, which scouts out a middle ground between the most > trademark-friendly proposals and the laissez-faire policy of activists > defending small domain name holders. > > Beneficial results have been reported as much by people acting outside > the organization as by those within it. I myself have written several > position papers regarding ICANN policies and have attended two > meetings, all as an outsider. At one of these meetings, chairperson > Esther Dyson addressed critics directly, saying that ICANN would do the > right thing because "you'll be watching us and keeping us honest." With > so many experts on Internet policy establishing their credentials > outside the purview of ICANN, the Board would hurt only itself by > suddenly instituting a members-only policy when running meetings or > accepting comments. > > But working inside might not be so bad either. Even as many > public-interest representatives leave the field in despair, a new crop > jumps in, as shown by the [80]study being conducted by [81]Common Cause > and [82]CDT. These organizations sponsored the expert roundtable > mentioned earlier in this article, and are now requesting comments from > the public. > > The ICANN Board would be crazy to exploit the loopholes described in > this article to the limit. The [83]memorandum from the Commerce > Department setting up ICANN in November 1998 explicitly calls for > members, and Dyson promised a U.S. Congressional investigation in > August 1999 that ICANN would have a membership. If they end up treating > members like dirt, they may have to answer to a court or to the U.S. > government--and the next Commerce Department or Congressional committee > could turn out to be tougher than the current ones. > > I believe the important thing is not to ensure that the number of > Asians in ICANN (for instance) is proportional to the number of Asians > on the Internet or to the total population of Asia. What's critical is > to draw in Asians (and others from around the world) who care about > their communities, who understand the issues that ICANN is dealing > with, and who have the time and resources to participate. We must make > sure that all have access to information and can reach the public with > their views. In other words, transparency and access are the best > guarantee of fairness, and membership is useful if it fosters those > virtues. > > So each reader will end up making his or her own choice. But I can tell > you right now, I'm not going to go through the trouble and frustration > of becoming an ICANN General Assembly member. And neither--you bet your > life--would Groucho. > __________________________________________________________________ > > [84]Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly & Associates and moderator > of the Cyber Rights mailing list for Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility. This article represents his views only. The > article is copyrighted by Web Review but can be reposted for > non-profit use. > > References > > 65. http://webreview.com/pub/at/Platform_Independent > 66. http://webreview.com/pub/au/Oram_Andy > 67. http://www.icann.org/ > 68. http://www.icann.org/at-large/call-1dec99.htm > 69. http://www.markle.org/news/Release.199911021153.1178.html > 70. http://www.markle.org/ > 71. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II > 72. http://www.commoncause.org/icann > 73. http://www.aso.icann.org/ > 74. http://www.icann.org/pso/psonew.htm > 75. http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso.htm > 76. http://www.icann.org/feedback.html > 77. http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm > 78. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B > 79. http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm > 80. http://www.commoncause.org/icann/background.htm > 81. http://www.commoncause.org/ > 82. http://www.cdt.org/ > 83. http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm > 84. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) 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
