Re: [icann-eu] Some notes on the ALSC's questions

[vipexinternet <registry@vipex.de>]

unsubscribe icann-europe@fitug.de

Wolfgang Kleinwächter schrieb:

> Dear Alex and Thomas!
>
> Thanks for the good intellectual input. As I mentioned in Melbourne, the ICC
> is planning to have a "ALM Members Dialogue with ALM Directors" at the eve
> of the Stockholm meeting. The preliminary date is Thursday, 31st of May,
> 4.00 - 6.30 p.m. All five ALM directors have already confirmed its
> participation in principle. So far there is not yet an agenda. To make the
> dialogue as efficient as possible I would propose to structure the debate
> into three of four complexes (30 minutes per issue). I would be thankful for
> input what the four issues could be. The plan is, that "members" have an
> opportunity to interact with the five directors. Also the five directors
> should ghave an opportunity to ask concrete questions to their
> constituencies.
>
> A draft programme should be ready until May, 10th or so
>
> best regards
>
> wolfgang
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> To: <icann-europe@fitug.de>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 1:28 AM
> Subject: [icann-eu] Some notes on the ALSC's questions
>
> > Alexander Svensson and I had a long conversation this evening,
> > partially focussing on the ALSC's questions posted today.
> >
> > I'll try to summarize some of the arguments we found.  Maybe we can
> > actually generate some kind of micro-study for Stockholm based on
> > this.
> >
> > First, let me recall the questions:
> >
> > What are appropriate mechanisms for input by individual
> > Internet users throughout the world into ICANN?
> >
> > How can individual Internet users' participation be
> > structured to support ICANN's effective and efficient
> > fulfillment of its specific technical and administrative
> > missions?
> >
> > The first actual questions to look at are these: "What's input?"
> > And: "What does ICANN need USER INPUT for?"
> >
> > You can, of course, restrict input into ICANN to the kind of input
> > they get all the time on their public Web forums.  This input is
> > nice for being counted ("we had 4000 comments on this issue, we are
> > democratic"), and for being ignored.  It's pretty much useless.
> > There is a considerable danger that trying to generate structured
> > input from the At Large - which might be used as a basis for
> > decision-making - on complex topics such as the Verisign agreemnets
> > or the new TLDs would suffer from similar problems.
> >
> > Note that this does not mean that I'm entirely dismissing public
> > discussions on topics, or the "public opinion".  They do have their
> > value, and they may even lead to results.  But they'll be there
> > anyway, they'll influence any decision-making process, and they
> > don't need extra input channels and structure.
> >
> > As a consequence, we should look for more indirect input into the
> > process:  For instance, the kind of input we created last year when
> > we elected the members of the board of directors.
> >
> > Thus,
> >
> > THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INPUT INDIVIDUAL USERS CAN AND
> > SHOULD GENERATE IS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF
> > ICANN TOWARDS THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
> >
> > Now, why does ICANN need this kind of input?  After all, the IETF
> > can do without, one may argue.
> >
> > Of course, this argument is flawed, since the ICANN is not a rather
> > open standardization organization such as the IETF.  If the IETF
> > screws up with some proposed standard, it won't be used, it won't be
> > implemented, and it will be replaced by something which works.
> > Remember, the IETF believes in rough consensus AND RUNNING CODE.
> > Basically, the IETF gathers input from users all the time, as far as
> > they are acting as customers on the market, accepting (or not
> > accepting) implementations of protocols, in turn generating interest
> > of manufacturers into the standardization process.  And, of course,
> > you always have the feedback whether or not something works.  A
> > fortiori, one may also look for "technical" standardization bodies
> > which have built-in feedback links to society as a whole.
> >
> > ICANN should be looked at differently: It is the de facto (and, one
> > may claim, natural) monopoly on the root zone market, and it is
> > unlikely that this monopoly will be broken any time soon, despite
> > all the hopes the alt.root folks may have (I'm not discussing the
> > question whether or not breaking that monopoly would be desirable at
> > all).  In part, this is because the network effects with the DNS
> > root zone are much stronger than the ones with certain kinds of
> > protocols.  Looking at the corporation this way, much of the
> > criticized behaviour becomes understandable, because ICANN actually
> > just behaves like about any monopoly.  Trivially, there is no actual
> > competition on the root zone market which can be used as an
> > easy-to-use channel for feedback, and generate natural
> > accountability.
> >
> > Thus,
> >
> > ICANN IS LACKING ANY NATURAL FEEDBACK CHANNELS WHICH COULD
> > BE ACCESSIBLE FOR ORDINARY USERS.
> >
> > (Maybe Microsoft and AOL could team up to break the monopoly. But
> > that's really not the issue here.)
> >
> >
> > Summarizing, the question which should actually be asked and
> > answered is this one: How can ICANN be endowed with the necessary
> > feedback and control mechanisms?  Note that this is not a pure At
> > Large question: Most of the DNSO's constituencies have the very same
> > problem, and they have experienced it in a painful way with the
> > Verisign decision, when the board of directors probably decided in
> > the best interests of the corporation (and Verisign), but possibly
> > not in the best interests of Verisign's competition, and generally
> > ICANN's customers and Internet users (which include ISPs, individual
> > Internet users, governments, and TLD operators alike).
> >
> >
> > The feedback mechanism which was designed into ICANN's basic
> > construction (let me call it Plan A) was to create a board on which
> > the representatives of various stakeholders are balanced with user
> > representatives.  Actually implementing this plan would indeed endow
> > ICANN with a feedback mechanism, and may possibly help to further
> > balance interests. However, this plan has the problem (and the
> > feature!) that members of the board have to decide in the best
> > interests of the corporation, and not of their electorate.  Also,
> > with the process as it's currently applied, the board can easily
> > "take criticism into account" without asking whether the critics are
> > actually satisfied (unless the NC members get their proxies right,
> > but that's another issue).
> >
> > In particular, we have to conclude that even directly electing at
> > large members to the board will not, cannot, and must not guarantee
> > that these board members act in the best interests of their
> > electorate.
> >
> > Thus, Plan B may be to put the feedback and control mechanisms into
> > an entity which is different from the board, and is _not_ forced to
> > decide in the corporation's best interest.  Such an entity would
> > need a veto right which can be applied AFTER the board has voted on
> > a resolution.  The parties present in such an entity could include
> > representatives of internet users, the GAC, and the SOs' councils,
> > each with a fixed number of votes. Once a certain quorum is reached
> > (e.g., two of the four parties vote for veto) a board decision would
> > have to be revoked and reconsidered by the board.
> >
> > Please note that Plan A and Plan B are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Also note that I don't have the faintest idea whether or not Plan B
> > is at all compatible with the parts of the California Code
> > applicable to ICANN matters.
> >
> >
> > What do you people think about all this?  Does this sound to you
> > like directions of thought which should be pursued further, maybe
> > with the goal of producing a joint mini-study to be submitted to the
> > ALSC?  (Or is it all just nonsense and a direct consequence of the
> > fact that it's way too late now?)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler     <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> >

--
Alles klar? Sonst rufen Sie bitte an. Fuer Fragen stehe ich
Ihnen gerne zur Verfuegung.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen

~VIPEX Internet Presence


David Schmidt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~VIPEX Internet Presence GmbH
Brüsseler Str. 89 - 93
D-50672 Cologne

fon +49-221-5 79 77-19
fax +49-221-5 79 77-22

mailto:registry@vipex.de
http://www.vipex.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

begin:vcard 
n:Schmidt;David 
tel;fax:+49 221 57977-22
tel;work:+49 221 57977-19
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.vipex.com
org:~VIPEX Internet Presence GmbH;Registry
adr:;;Brüsseler Str. 89-93;Cologne;NRW;50672;Germany
version:2.1
email;internet:registry@vipex.de
fn:David Schmidt
end:vcard