[council] Fwd: overwiew of ICANN Reform ("Socrates paper" by P.Kane)

["Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

FYI - the overview presented in this paper ("Socrates paper" by P.Kane)
received unanimous support of the parties present at the CENTR
Crete meeting ... now a process of consultation will start.

Elisabeth
--
PLAIN TEXT with clipped small .GIF is pasted,
The RTF FORMAT file was posted to the CENTR GA list on 27 May
and is attached here for your convinience
--



The importance of ICAnn




As CENTR members travel to Crete for their 14th General Assembly, many
colleagues will pass through Socrates' "home town" of Athens, it is worth
remembering that Socrates did not want his words transcribed onto tablets or
into books that could circulate without their author or travel beyond the
reach of discussion and questions, for fear of exposure to unauthorised
revision, confusion or misrepresentation. Plato recognised his teacher's
concerns and published Socrates' thoughts and conversations as an honest
Secretariat, simply recording the wisdom of his teacher and the
understanding of the people. The problems to which Socrates pointed are just
as acute today, in an age of re-circulated 'news', public relations, global
gossip and Internet power struggles.



The new Internet technologies are ideal for achieving greater transparency
and openness. Unfortunately the very technologies that distribute
information so easily and efficiently are every bit as good at spreading
misinformation and disinformation. If we want a society of technical
stability and which placing trust is easier, we need to look for ways in
which we can actively check one another's claims. This cannot be achieved
merely by greater reliance on informed consent or consumer protection. Due
to the nations of the world having cultural multiplicity and diversity of
political and legal platforms, it is most likely a single global management
structure will fail all of the communities it is designed to serve and
potentially lead to commercial and civil chaos.



Milton believed that truth and civil accord would always triumph in a "free
and open encounter".  With the Internet a rich and diverse global resource,
technically not able to be subject to the more traditional hierarchal top
down "governance" structure perhaps the time has come for our political
masters to start thinking laterally.



Throughout the short history of the Internet development has occurred
through "Centres of Expertise" - where those with the necessary knowledge
share their wisdom, so the merging of great minds results in a step forward
for the global community and the betterment of mankind. Each Centre of
Expertise has retained its autonomy to remain focused on resolving specific
issues, avoiding confusion and chaos. These various autonomous Centres of
Expertise foster the community spirit such that Cicero's proverb Iucundi
acti labores (a job well done is a real pleasure) leads to a robust, stable
and universal Internet, without the restrictions imposed by inflexible
contractual relationships. The Technical community, from the Root Name
Server Operators to the Internet Engineering Task Force, all understand the
foundation of the Internet is built on cooperation and failure to appreciate
such simple principles potentially lead to destruction of the universal
communications medium, used by millions of citizens today.



The virtual world is no different from the physical world. In a democratic
society, there is a multiplicity of political parties. In each country there
are different views, cultural considerations, jurisdictional areas of
authority delineating areas of responsibility. The Parliament, the forum for
information exchange, is replaced once the term of office has expired; yet
the judiciary continue to serve their community, ensuring stability and the
on-going well-being of the community. No single forum has power over the
courts of the land and the sovereignty of a nation, yet history has shown
the vagaries of politics, oscillate from left to right when long-term
prosperity is almost always found at the point of equilibrium.



If ICANN becomes a "seat of power" it may become the "seat of failure"
subject of litigation, derision and circumvention.  If ICANN becomes the
servant to the community, offering itself as a place of information
exchange, organising a programme of activities to encourage participation in
the Internet and democratic process by the widest spectrum of people, it
will provide authoritative analysis of problems and practical suggestions
for change. It is not governance by "power" or "proclamation" but cajoling
compliance based in standards and community advancement.





The role I see for ICANN is as an Internet Centre for AdmiNistrative
excelleNce, (ICAnn). Like Plato accurately recording the wisdom of the
Centres of Excellence so the global Internet community can continue to
enhance and enrich the lives of its users. Just as Plato, continues to play
an important role in today's civilisation, ICANN too can become an important
source of published knowledge.  I am specifically not advocating that ICANN
becomes the source of knowledge, for like Socrates I fear unauthorised
revision, confusion or misrepresentation, but an ICAnn that simply records
and publishes Internet community input and wisdom. It is the Centres of
Excellence who through internal management processes formulate Best Practice
applicable to their Community and pass their decisions to the ICAnn for
publication.



The role of Governments and their representatives is very important as a
means of submitting Public Policy issues to the community, via participation
in each Centre of Excellence, and the GAC. Just as Plato was the recorder of
Socrates' wisdom, so was it that Euthyphro, Apology and Crito, who checked
to ensure the integrity of Plato's work as Trustees on behalf of the
community. For the community at-large to have confidence in ICAnn, the
(s)election by the Nominating Committee of the representatives of the
(small) Oversight Body of Trustees needs to be considered carefully to
ensure cultural multiplicity and diversity of political and legal platforms
is present.  Such an approach will foster confidence with the community
at-large and facilitate an understanding of the importance of maintaining
equilibrium without introducing destabilising visions of authority.





































Most of the Root Name Servers are operated on a pro-bono basis by
organisations with staff of excellent technical competency and network
infrastructure of more than adequate capacity for the global community.
Currently the IANA function is undertaken by ICANN performing a management
function with insertions and modifications of entries in the root zone file
on behalf of US Department of Commerce.  The Root Name Server Network is
proven to be robust, resilient to attack and a stable foundation for the
further development of the Internet.



The Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board have
a proven track record in developing technical standards for the
inter-connection and global operation of the Internet, and openly discussing
and regularly publish on the Internet (using internal management processes)
RFC's as guidance to the community.



The 3 (soon to be 4) Regional Internet address Registries (RIRs) have a
proven track record in managing the allocation of Internet Protocol
Addresses, regularly hold open meetings with interested parties to ensure
the stable development of services throughout their geographical areas of
operation.



The 244 Country Code Top Level Domains Registries (ccTLDs) obtain their
authority from, and are accountable to, their local (national) Internet
communities, which may comprise local Government, Internet users, community
groups and trade/professional associations. ccTLD registries accredit and
enforce agreements with their registrars or resellers in accordance with
their published policy.



Like all of the above Centres of Expertise, ccTLDs hold regular meetings
with their members and formulate Registry policy based on national law,
cultural requirements and technical resources of the national
infrastructure. There are a few situations in the ccTLD community of
requests for reassignment of the management of a ccTLD registry.  Where the
reassignment is amicable from one administration to another ICAnn's role is
simply to record the change; where a reassignment is in dispute there should
be recourse by the aggrieved parties to national courts to resolve any
disputes, with ICAnn recording the judicial verdict.



The generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLDs) obtain their authority under
contract from, and are accountable to, ICANN. ICANN - or the Advisory Bodies
to ICANN formulate policy following input from active members of the global
Internet community.  ICANN has the responsibility to accredit and enforce
agreements with gTLD registrars servicing gTLD Registries and failure to do
will potentially cause chaos undermining the stability and confidence of the
gTLD registrant community.



Under this proposal the resources required in the provision of services
under ICAnn are proportional to the demands placed on ICAnn by each Centre
of Expertise. Upon evaluating the required resources it became clear the
level of funding to ICAnn is inversely proportional to the expenditure each
Centre of Expertise undertakes in self administering its requirements.



When the IETF or the RIR's seek to resolve a specific issue, they
self-organise the communities and hold open public meetings either virtually
via email lists or physically to seek the counsel of the experts. When the
combined wisdom of their members is obtained they publish the results in an
open and transparent manner so all may share in the benefit. National ccTLD
registry operators similarly consult their national communities, at great
internal expense, to address specific issues of interest to their national
community, and once the consultation process is concluded share their
finding with the broader international community, so other Registries may
benefit.



Due to the globally diverse composition of the gTLD community, the gTLD
community is by far the largest direct contributor of fees to ICANN paying
for a range of coordination and policy development services. Having
developed policy the gTLD community needs to be assured ICAnn will enforce
the terms of the contracts developed through community consensus. Failure by
ICAnn to enforce the contracts results in Registrars, Registries and
Registrants incurring additional support costs to resolve operational
disputes, whilst having paid a proportion of the levied domain registration
fee for ICAnn to undertake a contract compliance role. Once the gTLD
community becomes more established and matures, the opportunity for
self-organisation will manifest, and it is likely the resources required by
the centralised compliance unit of ICAnn will decrease.



The level of funding for the Internet Centre of Administrative Excellence as
outlined is, I am advised, sustainable by the respective communities to
ensure the stable operation of ICAnn as the centralised community
coordination resource.



At the click of a mouse those with insatiable appetites for information and
a desire to participate in the process of evolution of the Internet can do
so by becoming a participant of their chosen Centre of Expertise.



Some members of the ICANN Board may be reluctant to allow a Body of Trustees
(by empowering the Centres of Excellence), thereby not facilitate the
required evolution to the ICAnn structure. It therefore beholds the
community at large, including Governments, and each Centre for Excellence to
play a pivotal role as catalyst for change.



In my opinion there is no need for the inappropriate centralised seat of
power, or regimes that protect the past against the developments of the
future, instead we need a vibrant light weight decentralised ICAnn such that
Socrates, Plato, Euthyphro, Apology and Crito would all be proud.



Paul M. Kane (P.Kane@REACTO.com) 22nd May 2002

clip_image001.gif

ICANN reform.rtf