Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given
to
any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
of whatever ICANN created.

Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
(a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.

Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
to make policy decisions relating to it."

In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
a concerted opposition.

It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)

At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
through the development of a structure wherein domain
name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
But don't hold your breath.

Bill Lovell
 

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

 

...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:

With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
language:
     "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html

The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.

Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
opened and it will not be open for long.

Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
"input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
successful application.

The Review report is in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

Comments may be posted to:  comments-review@dnso.org

The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
 

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html