[wg-c] ICANN hearings and WGC timetable

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

The US Congressional Committee that oversees the Commerce Dept
completed its hearings on ICANN today.

I would note parenthetically that two members of the gTLD
working group, Jon Weinberg and Ken Stubbs, testified at the
hearings.

One issue in particular was raised that is directly relevant to
this committee's work.

In anticipation of the hearings, the US Dept of Commerce ordered
ICANN to adopt as its "highest priority" the creation of a
membership structure and the election of At-Large Directors by
that membership. See
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/blileyrsp.htm

This policy direction suggests that ICANN should not and cannot
make binding policy decisions about matters as important as new
gTLDs until its full board is in place. No final decision is
conceivable until November, when the SO Directors will be added.
There is strong political pressure to put such things off until
the entire Board, including the elected At-Large members, is in
place.

Representative Pickering suggested an even more sweeping
approach: some kind of a "moratorium" or "freeze" on any further
ICANN activity until certain issues are resolved.
That was only a suggestion, and it is not entirely clear what he
meant by a "freeze." But it reflects widespread concern in
Washington that ICANN needs to work on getting its own house in
order--ie a fully representative structure in place--before it
makes any binding decisions.

I suggest, therefore, that this Working Group look toward the
November ICANN meeting in Los Angeles as a goal for completing
its report to the Names Council. We should plan to hold a
face-to-face meeting at that time to complete the report.
Indeed, I don't think we have any choice about whether we move
faster than that. Even in November, there is a good chance the
report will have to wait until At-Large members are elected
before any gTLD policy is adopted.

November is not really that far off, anyway. It represents a
realistic timetable for developing an intelligent policy
recommendation for one of the most complex and vexed issues the
Internet has faced.

The committee put as much heat on NSI as it did on ICANN, if not
more. But it is clear that the NSI problems must be addressed in
US NTIA-to-NSI negotiations. Nothing that happens between NSI
and NTIA in the next three months is going to alter the fact
that there is widespread concern about the authority of ICANN's
policy making procedures and the need for greater representation
in its Board.

I fully understand the economic implications of further delay.
In my opinion a three month delay is a small price to pay to
give ICANN time to regain the confidence of the Internet
community.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/