[ga] Your DEMYS Interview

[David Farrar <david@farrar.com>]

Jonathan,

I have read with interest the two parts of the interview you gave to DEMYS 
which have been published recently.  I congratulate you for being open and 
speaking publicly on how you see issues within ICANN.  

You touched on a number of very important issues which I am hoping you will be 
comfortable to further elaborate on through the GA list to which this e-mail is 
cc'd.  At the end of the day communication is one of our biggest issues in 
making ICANN work.

In Part One you said "As a Board we've come to the conclusion that we can do no 
more than to listen to all of the points of view that are put forward - even 
the ones that might seem more outrageous - we debate them, seek advice from 
outsiders and try to get an international, technical, legal and political 
perspective - and we make a decision and that's the way it is"

However to an outsider the Board appears to vote with the staff recommendation 
99% of the time.  The only occassion I can recall the Board did not is a minor 
issue of an IP rep on a Taskforce.  On organisations I serve on I have never 
come across such a high incidence of acceptance of staff recommendations.  
Around 80 - 90% is more common.  So does ICANN just have staff who are never 
wrong or can you understand why some may feel that the Board doesn't consider 
other points of view enough?

In Part One you also mention you sit on the Board of CIRA which has three 
quarters of the Board elected by what is effectively an at large movement - 
individual Registrants.  Why with your experience with CIRA do you not support 
at large elections for a portion of the ICANN Board when CIRA ha sshown they 
can work?

In Part Two you acknowledge that the styles of some of the ICANN negiotators 
with the ccTLDS diminished the chanes of sucessful agreements.  Why then are 
these negiotators still being used?  They appear to have failed miserably.

You quote one anonymous ccTLD operator as saying they do not want ICANN to 
suceed.  Do you believe this is a representative viewpoint of ccTLDs or do you 
believe the ccTLDs want ICANN to suceed but reject the non negiotable terms 
ICANN keeps placing down?

I absolutely agree with you that negiotation's key sucess is based on 
understanding what is really important to the other party?  What do you think 
is really important to the bulk of the ccTLD community?  Would it help for them 
to state this?

You go on to say that ICANN has never intended to dictate to ccTLDs but with 
all respect this is not reflected in ICANN's actions.  The proposed contracts 
give ICANN unlimited authority to dictate to ccTLDs.  Joe Sims has said that 
open ccTLDs should be dictated to in the same way as gTLDs.  ICANN has refused 
to change contact details for ccTLDs unless they sign a contract.  Lately it 
has refused name server updates without zone file access.  *Everything* about 
ICANN's actions seem to have been about dictating to ccTLDs instead of working 
with them.  

You touch on the point that some ccTLDs are operating independently of their 
Governments.  I agree this is a concern but there is a redelegation process 
that can deal with this as we saw with .au.  However the ccTLDs which are most 
active in the ccTLD constituency almost all have excellent relationships with 
their Goverments such as CENTR, InternetNZ, most of Asia etc.  

You go on in Part II to say you can not think of a single time the Board has 
gone against a real consesus decision.  I'm sorry but that beggars belief if 
you think that.  The list is long.  I am assuming you mean a consensus within a 
Supporting Organisation ratehr than a consesus amongst the Board and/or staff 
which would be a truism.

Off the top of my head I have the following decisions over-turned or amended 
which had met ICANN's definition of consensus within the DNSO.
- Rejection of changes to Verisign Contract
- Rejection of WLS
- .org redelegation policy and process

And the biggest one of all - the unamious reccomendation of the $500,000 ALSC 
which wanted to retain at large board seats after major consultation.

There are several more also.  In fact I can't recall many times when the Board 
has actually voted to support a DNSO consensus decision.  Can you point to even 
three such occassions?

You again reject atlarge elections because you think 2,000 people voting in 
North America is not representative enough?  How then is 20 people in a 
nominating committee any better?  Seriously.  What makes you think the current 
Board are suitable to handpick their sucessors when in the words of your own 
President and echoed by the US Government you have failed in almost all your 
targets of the last two years?

You go on to say you want a system where people like Carl Bildt can be 
handpicked to sit on ICANN Board.  I find this curious as your Board totally 
rejected the recommendatiosn of his ALSC.  The model of the current Board 
effectively handpicking its own sucessors is one used by very few organisations 
now a days.  The most famous one is probably the International Olympic 
Committee.  That has been a prime example of what can happen when you don't 
have accountability back to any wider membership.  So my question is "What 
safeguards exist in ICANN now to deal with a "bad" Board?.  In most 
organisations the members can sack the Board if it goes off the rails.  In 
ICANN all power is vested in the Board.

I want ICANN to suceed but with all due respect if members of the Board 
seriously think that they have never made a single decision which goes against 
a consensus them ICANN is probably doomed.  The US DOC has given a one year 
period in which ICANN has to achieve things rather than just talk about them.  
At present the ccTLDs, the IETF and the RIRs are all backing away.  The staff 
seemed to have shown appalling judgement in managing relationshsips with them 
yet the Board continues to accept all staff recommendations.

Again I congratulate you on doing the interviews and giving us an insight into 
how the Board sees itself as working.  


David
Farrar

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