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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Camron and all,

  We [INEGroup] which have members in some 136 countries now,
also support ICANN becoming a truly international organization.  But
we DO NOT support Alf's proposal for it to be "Owned" by the ISOC.
As has been pointed out time and time again the ISOC is essentially
captured by large business interests.  This seem to largely be the case
with ICANN.  Should ICANN become a proper international organization
that is truly open to ALL stakeholders and those stakeholders are
equal in their representation regardless of their affiliation, than ICANN
can stand "On its Own" as and international organization.

  Now that said, the ICANN board has shown time and time again
and in almost every area of potential policy, that it is inept and
considered by a growing number of stakeholders to be corrupt
in its present form, and in it's policy actions. Hence we believe
that ICANN must do either serious reform (Which I personally feel
is unlikely) or it must be abandon and restarted again...

camerons@cwcom.net wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208