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

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

Camron and all,

  I am sure our members will be pleased to hear or read of your
support for our suggestion.  I am not sure that the ICANN board
will be pleased, however.

camerons@cwcom.net wrote:

> 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

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