[ICANN-EU] USG's ultimate control, transition roadmap

[camerons@cwcom.net]

This is a very difficult issue - in the end I support Alf's proposal for a transition
process.

There are both 'moral/ideal' and practical aspects to consider when 
deciding what to go for.

In 'moral/ideal' terms ICANN should be a global organization with membership
open to anyone who is affected by its policies, a structure that ensures it
is driven by its membership, and a clear statutory role accorded it by governments.


In 'practical' terms there are several strong reasons why USG 'ultimate control'
might be beneficial.  In particular:
1) There is /no/ clear legal basis for international organizations with a statutory
role.  (By 'statutory role' I mean those that governments allow to regulate
things - as opposed to pressure groups like, say, Friends of the Earth). The
current international regulatory environment is a hotch-potch of different organizations
which have grown piecemeal from diplomatic and commercial initiatives over the
years.  Some are mainly fora for national governments (e.g. the UN and the WTO),
some are effectively run by the commercial & public operators in an industry
sector (e.g. the ITU) and some appear to have no particular legitimizing base
(e.g. the WIPO) but are successful both because they fulfil a useful role for
economic actors in a sector, and a useful regulatory role for governments.
What you don't find are international organizations of the sort I described
above in 'moral/ideal'.  I suppose the closest there is to a mass organization
with an accepted statutory role is the ILO, but even it has not got direct individual
members, instead it is an affiliation of nation affiliations of trade unions.

So a 'membership-driven' ICANN of the sort many people on this list would like
to see would very much be breaking new ground in terms of its legal basis and
its relationship with governments - there is no clear 'space' for it to fit
into.

2) Whether you like it or not, the US is and will be one of the key, 'make or
break' players in the regulation of the internet for the foreseeable future.
 This is due to its enormous economy, the leading role of its economy in sectors
related to the internet, and its dominant role in most international regulatory
bodies which will impinge on ICANN's 'regulatory space': the WTO, the UN, the
OECD and G7.
The USG has a /very/ shabby record in ignoring/not participating in institutions
as and when it can't be bothered with them - look at its backlog of dues to
the UN for example, or its voting record in the UN Security Council.
On the other hand it has a very well-developed /internal/ political system which
gives a strong role in policy-making to mass membership organizations.
Therefore, for the sake of realpolitik, it would seem sensible not to put ICANN
'out in the cold' as a completely international organization where the US will
just start ignoring it.  If it stays as an internal US organization the USG
will at least listen to it.

3) ICANN's current democratic deficit regarding both its policies and its accounting
means that I am happy if for the time being people can have a legal handle on
it via a well-developed legal code like that in California.  In contrast, if
it was truly international getting legal redress would be much slower and harder.


All of the above points don't mean that ICANN can't or shouldn't become 'non-US',
only that it should move at a sensible pace and avoid marginalizing itself.


Therefore I support Alf's proposal for a 'transition' from USG to 'full international'
status.  However I think we should try and flesh it out before the elections.


I think the 'transition roadmap' should have the following features:
* clear timescale and intermediate 'milestones' to avoid the possibility of
foot-dragging and backsliding by the ICANN board.  The first milestone would
be the drawing up of a detailed roadmap!
* Realistic timetable to avoid veto by USG - I would rather ICANN took 3 years
for the transition but did it probably than tried to be overambitious and ended
up being blocked.
* makes explicit provision to 'get on board' not only every region of the world,
but countries from different economic backgrounds (rich, NIC, and developing)
and representatives from all sectors - commercial, civil society and public
sector.  Failure to do this will result in the excluded parties ignoring ICANN.


Anyway, what do others think, particularly the candidates.

I apologise for the long post!

Cameron Smith