[icann-eu] G. Capdeboscq's comments on the At Large

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

[Hans: Feel free to post this.]

As a comment on the latest issue of the Cyber Federalist, Geraldine
Capdeboscq makes some interesting remarks on the role and function
of the At Large Membership.

She first notes that experts were fine for the management of the
Internet as long as the US government was an accepted arbitrator
between the interests involved. She then notes that they are still
much better managers than consumer representatives, since they know
about the "real problems", and possible solutions.

This brings up a first question: Is ICANN just about technical
management?  Things such as the existence of the UDRP or the latest
Verisign-related trouble make it abundantly clear that ICANN is more
than just technical management.  And is it really just the consumer
representatives who make things slow and cumbersome?  Or is it the
very fact that different interests are at stake?  The struggle
between ICANN staff and board and the DNSO over the Verisign Deal
suggests that, from a technocratic point of view, almost any
participation of those affected by decisions makes the process slow,
cumbersome, and complicated.  Arguing only from an efficiency point
of view, this kind of participation should be removed, and things
should be left to ICANN's staff.  (Excercise for the reader: Apply
this kind of argument to any democratic constitution.  Look at what
comes out after you applied the argument.)

In any event, I don't buy the "it's just about management, let the
technocrats do it, they know better than the general public" style
of argument which Geraldine is proposing. I also don't buy the role
of a court jester for the At Large membership (and the DNSO?).
There's more to the ICANN process than just reminding the
technocrats that they are mere mortals, and may make errors.

Recalling the kind of language we are all so familiar with, ICANN is
about the Internet community managing the DNS. However, it's not (or
rather: it should not be) about a small part of the Internet
community (possibly single, interested parties which capture the
process) imposing rules on the rest of that community, and the net
as a whole.

Of course, there may be "technocratic" approaches which actually may
work - just let those corporations manage the DNS for whom the
functioning of the name system and the Internet as a whole is
business-critical.

But ICANN is not built in this way. Stakeholders of all kinds have
been invited to participate in the process - now, efficiency can't
be a reasoning for excluding certain groups, and it can certainly
NOT be the reasoning for excluding end users.

Speaking a bit cynically, ICANN has opened up Pandora's box of
participation quite some time ago.  They shouldn't expect to get the
general Internet users back into that box.

-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>