Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Kent!

From memory, I think ICANN was called "a totally new
institutional animal" by the Economist, so I agree
that it is useful to compare it to various existing 
institutions and to see what we learn from it:

Kent Crispin wrote on 17.04.01, 16:46:37:
> I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is *very* far
> from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real nature or even it's
> possible nature.  I think a far better model for ICANN would be a
> professional society, or a industry standards body.  I'm thinking of
> organizations like the American Bar Association, or the American Medical
> Association, or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
> or the Underwriters Laboratories (Sorry these are all american
> institutions -- just the ones I'm familiar with).  
>
> These kind of
> organizations have quasi regulatory powers; they are frequently
> recognized by law; they are monopolies.  However, NONE of them have an
> "at-large membership" that makes them "accountable" to the public at
> large.  Instead, they rely on the fact that the entities involved
> compete against each other, but have a common interest in standards.

Hmmm. It is a bit difficult to use U.S. examples, because
frankly I don't know all that much about e.g. the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), but from what
I gather on the web, Certified Public Accountants enjoy a
government-protected monopoly of providing certain accounting
jobs. If AICPA decides do drop their professional standards
yet at the same time doesn't want non-CPAs to do certain jobs,
those others would seek protection against AICPA overstepping 
their role from (a) the U.S. legislator, (b) the U.S. courts.
(I would assume that this also roughly applies to the other 
professional organizations you mention.)

Problem regarding ICANN: We don't have a world legislator 
or a world court, and we probably both agree that it would not 
be a good idea to leave the decisions on the global Net to a 
single national legislator/court. Some may argue that the 
closest we get to a world legislator is an assembly of all
legislators in the world, but I have seen little support
for the idea that the GAC becomes a supervisory board...
So how else do we keep such a public check? E.g. by electing
representatives to the Board.

I assume the common interest you would refer to when talking 
about ICANN is a stable Internet. What about the other White 
Paper principles: competition; private, bottom-up coordination;
representation? What do we do if they are in conflict, and
who makes the choice?

> The decisions made by these bodies most certainly have an impact on the
> general public, but the general public doesn't have direct
> representation.
Because there are other mechanisms in place and people are
reasonably happy with them. This does not seem to apply here.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
--
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