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

[camerons@cwcom.net]

Jeff - I agree with you there.  I support the notion of a managed transition
for ICANN from USG control to 'independence'.  However I don't support Alf's
specific proposal for where that transition should take ICANN.  I can't see
any good reason why ICANN should be 'owned' by any organization rather than
'standing alone'.  In particular I would not like ISOC to be the 'owning organization'.


This is not to say that ICANN shouldn't have strong, well-established relations
with ISOC, IETF and for that matter the UN.  But these should be 'relations
between equals' - between organizations with different but inevitably overlapping
roles.  They should not be 'relations of ownership' with one organization having
'ultimate control' over another, or even a 'dominant influence' in another.


Cameron Smith

>From:           	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