[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Hearings in US Senate

[Hans Klein]

Hearings were held today on ICANN in the US Senate.  See:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings0202.htm

I found two testimony reports particularly interesting:
    The GAO (General Accounting Office) Report
    The Dept. of Commerce Report (by Nancy Victory, head of the NTIA)


The GAO Report
=============
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/061202guerrero.pdf

The report gives very thorough and sympathetic treatment to the issue of 
the At Large. It notes the many commitments made to elections, the many 
delays that occurred, and the recommendations of the ALSC and NAIS to hold 
elections. The GAO also repeatedly endorses the principle of 
balance-of-interests underlying the ICANN bylaws.

Basically, the GAO nicely summarizes the issues that the user community has 
been articulating for years and that the ICANN board and staff have been 
contesting.

The GAO also seems to suggest that the Dept. of Commerce has not been 
sufficiently active in performing oversight of ICANN. DoC is portrayed as 
using informal procedures, performing little oversight, and issuing no reports.

The GAO's conclusions seem pretty strong:  "... the timing and outcome of 
the [DNS privatization] transition effort remain highly uncertain, and 
ICANN's legitimacy and effectiveness ... remain in question." (p.15)

The final recommendation is, in contrast, mild:  DoC must start reporting 
on what is going on with ICANN. It would presumably be up to Congress to 
take stronger steps.

I think this report is very supportive of the At Large membership.


Dept. of Commerce Report
=====================
Nancy Victory's testimony:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/congress/2002/icann6122002.htm

DoC supports privatization in general and ICANN in particular.
** "the Department continues to support the goal of private sector 
management of the DNS. "
** "the Department believes allowing time for the ICANN  reform process is 
warranted."

DoC rejects Stuart Lynn's call for greater government involvement:
** "Since ICANN is a private sector entity, the governmental role, while 
important, must be advisory and narrowly tailored. "

DoC also recognizes the problem of legitimacy, although in limited terms:
"its structure, processes, and inability to make progress on other key DNS 
issues has undermined its effectiveness and legitimacy."

So what will be the basis of ICANN's legitimacy, if there is no government 
involvement?  DoC mentions: 1) a narrow mission and 2) 
transparency/accountability.

I don't think those mild recommendations can satisfy key stakeholders.  The 
main European Commission participant in ICANN, for example, has repeatedly 
said that the public interest needs to be represented, either by elections 
or by government involvement.  If the DoC rejects government involvement, 
that would seem to leave elections.

Hans