<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I got to tell you that at my university (and the ones around), most
"progressive" students (and aren't we almost all progressive) that
hears about ICANN are ready to throw it under the bus for its
"private" governance model (read: the participation ― and presumed
domination ―of commercial entities in the governance mechanisms).<br>
<br>
I'm as progressive as one can hope to be ― or so I am told by
conservatives ― but have always found a certain attachment to its
model, and want to see it succeed. This conflict is, btw, why I
joined this group. I couldn't share everyone's opinion that this was
such a bad idea to begin with (Lauren's, of NNSquad, is very
indicative of the learned-yet-popular wisdom on ICANN). Sure, when I
was reading Rony & Rony and Prof. Mueller's book some time ago,
I was rooting for IFWP (and Postel to stick to its guns re:root
redirection) but in the end ― apart from the <b>foundation issue</b>
which I will never be happy with until resolved ― I now root for
ICANN to be all it can be. I noticed the puns. They were unintended.
<br>
<br>
So, I don't know if this glitch is such an opportunity to reinvent
(I think not), but we should certainly be ready for when such an
opportunity is taken on by others and brought down on us by others.<br>
<br>
It is funny and interesting in a way, that Milton would probably (I
don't want to speak on his behalf, but such is my impression) not
approve of IFWP-like moves (or was it BWG? can't remember) to try to
clarify and explicitly settle the foundational attributes of IANA
"contracts" and severe all ties to US's pretensions. <br>
<br>
The funny part is that RTR is indubitably responsible for attracting
at least some people into ICANN and perhaps NCSG, and I'm sure that
many such people will come into ICANN with the pro rfc-attributed
(or community-attributed) iana contract preferences. The interesting
part is that I guess it's a testament to how thoroughly interesting
and relatively objective (not a big believer in the possibility of
this one) Milton's RTR was. It made me like ICANN more than I
disliked its "private" governance mechanisms. <br>
<br>
One (of the many) threat to ICANN's system would be that progressive
people like the ones that are here stop believing that they can
matter sometimes, and if that happens, if the balance seems
*irredeemably* skewed towards one of the many commercial worldviews,
then nothing but apathy could rein in the legitimacy backlash.
Apathy is strong, but you can't count on it forever. That goes to
the internal governance model, but I don't have a ready-made
reinvention opinion on this complex subject.<br>
<br>
Another threat is directly related to ICANN's (IANA's, rather)
foundation. Those are complex social problems with complex
ramifications and distribution of forces, and as a practical matter,
I can understand people not wanting to jump into them. But, like I
said, someone else will most likely make us jump, so its not too
early to start thinking about it.<br>
<br>
Something to think about: I'm sure when you Professors out there
talk about the complex organizational history of the Internet, you
notice right away how ICANN's polical capital is small when compared
to, say, IETF. Yet IETF is also "private" governance! <br>
<br>
There are reasons for this difference in symbolic capital, and I
would argue that the foundation issue is paramount amongst them. <br>
<br>
My provisional take to fix this low symbolic capital in two easy
steps:<br>
<br>
1- fix foundation/severe ties to NTIA<br>
<br>
2- bring back at-large election<br>
<br>
[3-do no evil!]<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/21/2012 9:56 AM, Mark Leiser wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEnQ3mUdJpxrB5erCrkL-vjs0fqb5jSkQRhA8KxUGmZmypVoQg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">As a bit of a politics junkie myself, I have to say I
disagree with the learned Professor Mueller's metaphor.
<div><br>
<div>It is arguable that the US Capitol building is not home to
one of the world's "first democracies"; however, for arguments
sake, lets say it is...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The question should be framed as follows, "if the Capitol
building collapses due to incompetent construction, and<i> </i>in
the aftermath<i>, the opportunity</i> presents itself to
re-think the nature of democracy, then should we? And if so,
then what changes should we bring about?"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The same should apply to ICANN and what is going on now. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mark R. Leiser</div>
<div>
<div>Phd Student</div>
<div>School of Law</div>
<div>Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty</div>
<div>Room 709, Level 7,</div>
<div>Graham Hills Building</div>
<div>50 George St, G1 1QE</div>
<div>University of Strathclyde</div>
<div>Glasgow, Scotland.</div>
<div>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.leiser@gmail.com">mark.leiser@gmail.com</a>
</div>
<div>Phone: +447825777686</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The University of Strathclyde is a Charitable Body,
Registered in Scotland, Number SCO15263</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM,
William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi
Carlos<br>
<br>
Neither of us is saying it's not a big mess that won't
have to be cleaned up. Just that it's not obvious it
requires a new round of organizational reinvention navel
gazing at this particular juncture.<br>
<br>
But I'm glad you think do anything merrily!<br>
<br>
BD<br>
<br>
PS: Please, Milton is not a political scientist, he
just plays one. We like states (not of nature). He's
actually a former art student gone bad, i.e. degree in
communication.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On Apr 21, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
<br>
> Wow, Milton, this is really amazing. This is
not a simple<br>
> "implementation mistake". This involved serious
breach of privacy of<br>
> expensive applications which are part of
investment strategies by<br>
> business organizations in most cases. There is
an obvious liability<br>
> issue here involved. It cannot be dismissed as
just "a computer form<br>
> that did not work as expected", and cannot be
left in the hands of the<br>
> same staff which caused the problem. And you
are not a computer<br>
> scientist, you are a political scientist as far
as I recall, which<br>
> surprises me even more.<br>
><br>
> And Bill Drake merrily embarks on the
dismissing argument, what is going<br>
> on with you people? :(<br>
><br>
> --c.a.<br>
><br>
> On 04/21/2012 03:54 AM, William Drake wrote:<br>
>> I agree. The governance model has issues,
but this is a separate<br>
>> matter. We've just gone through the whole
GNSO restructuring,<br>
>> ramping up the AoC process, etc. ICANN
doesn't need and probably<br>
>> couldn't handle another extended bout of
navel-gazing debate about<br>
>> reinvention right now. It needs to let the
dust settle for awhile,<br>
>> get new leadership in place, get new gTLDs
up and running, sort out<br>
>> IANA, advance the "internationalization"
and outreach efforts, etc.<br>
>> Plenty on the plate already.<br>
>><br>
>> I can't imagine that the business folks
that are laying out big cash<br>
>> and maneuvering around new names aren't
already screaming about the<br>
>> screw up, or that the management won't be
compelled to explain what<br>
>> happened and assure everyone it hasn't
skewed the application process<br>
>> for/against anyone. If there's going to a
joint request for info<br>
>> from SO/AC chairs or whatever, fine, but
it's not obvious to me NCSG<br>
>> needs to spend a bunch of cycles on this
unless folks are looking for<br>
>> something to do.<br>
>><br>
>> Bill<br>
>><br>
>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I am not sure I agree with the premise
that an implementation<br>
>>> mistake by the staff constitutes
grounds for completely reinventing<br>
>>> and rethinking ICANN. Can someone
explain the logic of that to me?<br>
>>> For example, if the Capitol building of
one of the world's first<br>
>>> democracies, e.g., the USA, had
collapsed due to incompetent<br>
>>> construction, would it mean that we
should re-think the nature of<br>
>>> democracy?<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think they need to fix the mistake,
fire those responsible, and<br>
>>> move on.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The root of the problem, to my mind, is
not the governance model<br>
>>> but, in this order: a) management
problems; b) the rube<br>
>>> Goldberg-like complexity of the new TLD
program, and c) the more<br>
>>> than a decade-long delay in accepting a
policy, which means that we<br>
>>> are dealing with a sudden flood of
1000+ applications rather than a<br>
>>> steady trickle of 10 or so a year, and
which, like b), is a product<br>
>>> of the intense politics swirling around
the program.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Remember that this has never been done
before.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ICANN needs to rethink and
reorganize itself!<br>
>>>><br>
>><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>