[ncdnhc-discuss] A statement on the ICANN "reform" proposal

[Rob Courtney]

At 9:27 AM -0800 2/26/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:04 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>>At 8:17 AM -0800 2/26/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>At 10:15 AM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>>
>>but the degree and type of that influence is something that those 
>>who design ICANN have control over.
>
>Thank you.  Nicely said.  It highlights exactly what is missing in 
>these sorts of exchanges:
>
>ICANN is not a design exercise.  It is tasked with ensuring 
>continued operation of critical functions in Internet administration 
>and operation.
>
>Yes, one can make a design that has, or omits, anything one wants.
>
>One cannot, however, make a successful ICANN that has a design that 
>ignores that actual power of governments.
>
>Giving governments a purely advisory role will work only if the 
>governments are willing to accept that role.  Here we have been 
>seeing that they are not.
>
>Hence the goal is one of trying to find a balance that governments 
>WILL accept.

I have not seen evidence that governments are forcing this. I do 
think that governments, like the rest of us, are concerned by the 
problems in ICANN's structure, but Lynn's proposal describes 
something more like a quid pro quo: governments will be represented 
on the Board; in turn they will agree to provide core funding to 
ICANN.

(Informational note: The ALSC (and NAIS) have acknowledged that, at 
least in the startup period, an open, inclusive At-Large Membership 
would more likely be a significant expense to ICANN than a revenue 
source.)

>
>
>>I think it is possible to describe, with clarity, every single one 
>>of the things ICANN should be doing. As a strawman: ONLY those 
>>items for which centralized control is NECESSARY to assure 
>>interoperability, data integrity, the availability of the Whois, 
>>etc.
>
>If one worries only about the narrowest of protocol issues, you are 
>probably correct.
>
>However ICANN must worry about ensuring that the name and number 
>administration service actually works in this real world we all 
>inhabit.  A working system must deal with more than a small set of 
>protocol standards.  It must deal with its operation in a larger 
>context.
>
>Absence of a UDRP, for example, was in fact proving crippling. 
>Hence the need for a mechanism that dealt with a core set of 
>registration disputes.

I'm flexible. Dispute resolution could be built into the mission 
(assuming that we define ICANN's role in creating a dispute 
resolution structure quite narrowly). The key is not that the list 
has to be short -- although I think the list could be quite short, 
since the shorter the list, the narrower the mission -- but that the 
list has to be well-defined.

r

P.S. I'll stop posting now because I want to make sure other people 
have a chance to weigh in.

-- 

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
rob at cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/

  --

Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
    JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
      http://www.cdt.org/join/