[ncdnhc-discuss] CYBER-FEDERALIST NO.13: Staying the Course on Internet Privatization

[todd glassey]

MY RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS INLINE BELOW.

******************************************************************
   CYBER-FEDERALIST          No. 13         31 May 2002

   STAYING THE COURSE ON INTERNET PRIVATIZATION
                  Comments on ICANN Reform [1]

              Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc)
    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
                   http://www.civsoc.org

               The Internet Democracy Project
          http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
   ******************************************************************


The ICANN board and staff are currently considering major changes to the
design of ICANN.  These changes were first proposed in President Stuart
Lynn's February Report (the "Lynn Proposal") [2] and are being elaborated
by the ICANN Committee on Evolution and Reform [3,4,5,6].

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) is the oldest
non-profit, mass membership organization working on social impacts of
computer technology.

SO - HOW MANY MEMBERS DOES IT HAVE?

CPSR's Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) has
been an active participant in Internet privatization since before the
launch of ICANN.  CivSoc has offered the following comments to ICANN on
reform.

AGAIN - SO WHAT? HOW MANY MEMBERS GLOBALLY DOES IT HAVE? ANY IDEAS WITHOUT
CRITICAL MASS ARE JUST THAT, IDEAS. HOW DOES IT PROPOSE TO CREATE THE NEEDED
CRITICAL MASS AROUND ITS RECCOMENDATIONS?

* The Lynn Proposal would redefine US policy for Internet
privatization.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT THIS MIGHT WANT TO BE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF THE US
AS A WHOLE, WOULDN'T YOU SINCE WE WILL WIND UP PAYING FOR IT ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.

However, such policy redefinition is outside the scope of
ICANN's authority.  Modification to the terms of the 1998 Internet
privatization should be made by the US Department of Commerce (DoC), in
consultation with other parties (including other governments.)

NO, THE DOC CANNOT RUN OPENLOOP ON INTERNET ISSUES ANYMORE. THERE ARE OTHER
GATING CONCERNS,
    o-    INCLUDING NATIONAL SECURITY
    o-    THE FAULT TOLERANCE AND RESILIENCE OF THE US INTERNET TO CYBER
ATTACKS AND OTHER ACTS OF TERRORISM. THIS IS A REAL CONCERN ESPECIALLY  FOR
ANY PORTION OF OUR US INTERNET USED IN THE OPERAITONS OF THE US GOVERNMENT.
    o-    AND THE FAULT TOLERANCE OF THE REGISTRARS THEMSELVES...

SO MY TAKE HERE IS THAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICE NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED
HERE AS DO OTHER DIVISIONS OF JUSTICE AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENTS.

* ICANN does exercise policy authority in DNS matters.

BE CAREFUL HERE - ICANN ONLY ADDRESSES DNS OPERATIONS NOT FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEMS WITH THE DNS ARCHITECTURE AND APPLCIATIONS ITSELF.

THE KEY CONCEPT HERE IS THAT WHEN DNS AND ITS SERVICES WERE ORIGINALLY
DESIGNED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR SECURITY IN THE DNS FACILITIES, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY THERE WAS ONLY A SINGLE SET OF ROOT SERVERS AND A SINGLE
REGISTRAR. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT DNS AS A TECHNOLOGY WAS NEVER ENGINEERED
FOR WHAT WE ARE USING IT FOR NOW, AND BECAUSE OF THAT THERE ARE ALL THESE
PROBLEMS BETWEEN THE REGISTRARS AND WHO DOES WHAT AND TO WHOM... THIS IS YET
ANOTHER CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ICANN'S FAILURE TO MANAGE THE PSO'S AND AS SUCH AT
A VERY MINIMUM, THE PSO'S NEED TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

PLEASE REALIZE THAT THIS ALSO MEANS THAT  MAYBE ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEMS IS THE DNS ITSELF? AND IF IT HAD A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE, THINGS
MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. PERHAPS IF DNS WAS MORE LIKE TELEPHONE NUMBERING IT
WOULD WORK BETTER. LOAD THE COUNTRY-CODE ON THE HEADING OF THE ADDRESS AND
VIOLA, THEN EACH COUNTRY-CODE BASED ZONE COULD HAVE IDENITCAL CAPABILITIES
TO EACH OTHER.

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THIS LAST COMMENT, AND YOU WANT TO, THEN I SUGGEST
THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW DNS ACTUALLY WORKS AND WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO
HAVE GLOBALLY REPLICATABLE ADDRESSES OUT OF A SINGLE ROOT AS ICANN PRESENTS.

While the
appropriate breadth of its policy-making power is an object of considerable
debate, the fact that it makes policy is no longer contested -- even by
ICANN [4].  This exercise of policy-making power creates the need for
legitimacy.

THIS BECOMES A REAL PROBLEM SINCE THE ICANN IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF
THE US GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH ITS SETTING PUBLIC POLICY IS A REAL PROBLEM.

* ICANN has not fulfilled the conditions of the 1998 Internet
privatization.  In particular, ICANN still lacks the required degree of
user representation on its Board.  Industry control of the ICANN board has
created a legitimacy deficit.

THIS LAST PARAGRAPH IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. BY ITS WORDING IT IS GROUNDS FOR
FLUSHING THE CURRENT PLAYERS NOT ICANN ITSELF. WHICH FROM THE LANGUAGE
HEREIN IS OBVIOUSLY WHERE THIS RECOMMENDATION IS GOING.

IT ALSO SAYS THAT A REGULAR AUDIT OF ICANN NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE DOC OR BY
SOME WATCHDOG ORGANIZATION.

* The main mechanism for legitimacy in ICANN has been the election of user
representatives to serve as At Large Directors.  The Lynn proposal rejects
this mechanism.  However, elections were successfully conducted in 2000.
Moreover, the use of elections to select At Large Directors has been
explicitly endorsed by:
o the European Commission's Christopher Wilkinson [7]
o former ICANN Chair Esther Dyson [8]
o former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt [8]
o Carter Center official Charles Costello [8]
o Numerous academic studies [9, 10]
o Numerous public interest groups [11,12]

EXCEPT THAT THE ELECTIONS DO NOT ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THE END USERS OR THE
OTHER COMMERCIAL DEPENDANTS *(THE DNSO'S GA FOR LACK OF A BETTER TAG). NOR
DO THEY ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES OF LEGITIMACY (THE AUDITS BY DOC OR OTHERS)

* Problems with the At Large elections may have their source more in the
opposition of the ICANN staff than from the inherent difficulties of
conducting elections.  A good faith effort to hold elections again would
likely yield even better processes than in 2000.

AMEN.

* The keyword for the Lynn Proposal is "effectiveness." By that is meant
that ICANN should significantly reduce its emphasis on procedural
safeguards (legitimacy) and be empowered to act in a more direct and
unfettered manner.

THEN MAYBE  LYNN NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A FINANCIAL SENSE FOR THE
DAMAGES THEY HAVE CAUSED PERHAPS. THIS WOULD LIKELY SHAKE THEM UP PRETTY
MUCH ANYWAY.

The Lynn Proposal recommends that ICANN become a more
centralized authority with reduced accountability to outside entities and
should be able to impose contracts on registries and other parties and to
call on national governments for enforcement.    This call for centralized
authority with strong power of enforcement is a dramatic departure from
established Internet practices of decentralized management and voluntary
cooperation.

* The Lynn Proposal's inclusion of governments in ICANN seems as much
motivated by a need for assistance in enforcement as by a concern for the
public interest.  Greater enforcement powers of ICANN policies by national
governments would be a dramatic departure from established Internet
practices.

NO... YOU ARE WRONG HERE I THINK.WE ARE NOT ONE WORLD YET AND WONT BE UNTIL
THIS INTERNET IS A PART OF ALL OF OUR COUNTRIES FABRICS AND THE POLITICAL
ENVELOPE AROUND IT IS CONFIRMED BY THE UN.

MY FEELING IS THAT WE ARE AT THE NEXT STAGE OF THIS INTERNET'S DEVELOPMENT
AND THAT IS A BUNCH OF eBORDERED ZONES BACKED UP TO ONE ANOTHER THROUGH
GATEWAY POINTS.

UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE UN TAKES ITS MANAGEMENT OVER, I THINK IT IS CRITICAL
THAT INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS ARE REPRESENTED AT THE APPROVAL LEVEL FOR WHAT
ICANN DOES AND DOES NOT ENABLE, ONLY ITS WHAT ICANN BASED INTERNET SERVICES
THEY WILL ALLOW INTO THEIR eBORDERS.

* The ICANN Committee on Evolution and Reform has introduced the term "the
ICANN community" where the previous term of reference was "the Internet
community" [6].  This manifests a significant narrowing of the vision of
input and accountability within ICANN.

I AGREE HERE

* The recently announced resignations of top ICANN staff raise the specter
of a sharp drop in organizational effectiveness [13].  The combination of
staff turnover and major restructuring could introduce so much simultaneous
change into ICANN that it cannot function effectively.  ICANN faces a
near-term risk of destabilization.

THIS IS TRUE OF ANY FLOUNDERING ORGANIZATION.

* The Department of Commerce faces a number of choices:
o DoC could allow ICANN to pursue it current course of redefining itself
and of redefining Internet privatization generally.  That puts US
policy-making in the hands of the private groups on the ICANN board and
leaves open the risk of organizational destabilization.

THE DOC DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT THE US INTERESTS AT THIS TIME THAT I
KNOW OF, AND SO THIS IS A REAL ISSUE HERE.

o DoC could use the upcoming expiration of its ICANN agreements to revise
US policy on privatization.  Revising the various the ICANN-related
agreements (be they MoUs, contracts, or procurements) would allow for an
appropriate policy-making process, i.e. a process under the authority of
the DoC.  A revised Internet privatization policy might embody part or all
of the Lynn Proposal.  Alternately, it might employ more market mechanisms
(as recommended by New.Net [14]) or might seek greater involvement by
international treaty organizations (as recommended by the International
Telecommunications Union [15]).  In any case, the US government and not
ICANN would oversee the policy-making process.

WHICH IS ANOTHER PROBLEM IN AND OF ITSELF.

o Alternately, the DoC could stay the course.  DoC could reaffirm the terms
of the 1998 Internet privatization and require ICANN to implement that
policy.


WHY THOUGH? WE KNOW THAT THESE CONSTRAINTS ARE LACKING AND WONT WORK FOR THE
LONG HAUL SO WHY RE-BLESS THESE 1998 CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES?

In particular, DoC could move ICANN to quickly implement At Large
elections, thereby settling a contentious issue that has consumed much of
the organization's attention.

BUT THEN THIS IS THE DOC MANAGING ICANN AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY (THE
DOC) DOESN'T WANT.

As noted above, this would be consistent
with recommendations of the European Commission's leading official in this
area and by ICANN's At Large Study Committee [7,8].

* CPSR's CivSoc recommends that last option:
o DoC should stay the course.  It should work closely with ICANN to fully
implement the original 1998 Internet privatization policy.  That policy
addressed the inescapable need for legitimacy in ICANN with a mechanism
that proved workable in 2000: elections.  By avoiding a major
restructuring, DoC also avoids the destabilizing combination of
organizational change and staff turnover.  Finally, by staying with the
original privatization policy, DoC would uphold the Internet traditions

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INTERNET TRADITION. WHAT THERE ARE IS
TRADITIONS FOR NSFNET AND ITS PREDECESSOR, THE ARPANET, BUT THIS INTERNET AS
A PRIVATIZED STRUCTURE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR LESS THAN 15 YEARS REALLY, SO
WHAT ARE THIS TRADITIONS YOU SPEAK OF?

of  private, voluntary, and decentralized management.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT ASSUMES, LIKE THE 1998
RESOLUTION DID, THAT THIS IS "ONE WORLD" AND ITS NOT. THIS IS AN EARTH OF
MANY, MANY COUNTRIES AND NOT A UNIFIED PEOPLE AS OF TODAY AND TO FORCE THE
PROCESS OF OUR BECOMING "ONE PLANET" BY MAKING THE INTERNET UBIQUITOUS IS A
GREAT IDEA EXCEPT THAT IT CUTS AGAINST THE GRAIN OF PRIVATIZATION.

THE PROCESS OF PRIVATIZATION ASSUMES FUNDING FOR SUCH EXPANSIONS AND WITHOUT
COMMERCIAL REVENUES THERE IS NO PRIVATIZED INTERNET.  SO HOW DOES THIS WORK
ALL TOGETHER? THE ANSWER IS THAT IT SIMPLY DOESN'T. AND ALL THE FORESIGHT
AND GOODWILL ABOUT EQUAL ACCESS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH DON'T MEAN SQUAT IN
PLACES WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO FINANCE TIER-3 ACCESS PROJECTS.

WHAT'S REALLY AMAZING IS ALL THESE HIGH POWERED PhD's AND THE LIKE JUMPING
ON THE 'ETHEREAL EARTH' BANDWAGON WITH NO IDEA WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO
IMPLEMENT OR RUN SUCH A GLOBAL NETWORK OF ACCESS AND FREE INFORMATION FLOW.

AND ESPECIALLY, THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, BECAUSE AS
MORE AND MORE OF THE CARRIERS GO BELLY-UP, THE PRIVATIZED INTERNET BECOMES
SMALLER AND SMALLER...SORRY, BUT REALITY SUCKS SOMETIMES.

o DoC should use all available means to gain ICANN's commitment to
implement the founding agreements of 1998.

WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST, A 2x4 PERHAPS?

o ICANN should cooperate with DoC in this process.

THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN WILLINGLY...

TODD GLASSEY {:-)

<SNIP>