[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN, ISOC, NomCom, Reform into proper perspectives

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 17:44 07/06/02, Hans Klein said:
>If the ICANN board's actions were less controversial (I believe this is 
>definitely possible), then ICANN elections would become boring.   That has 
>always been everyone's goal: boring elections that indicate that ICANN is 
>staying out of controversy.
>
>Instead, ICANN has proposed to eliminate the elections.  So now we can 
>spend another year or two redesigning this institution or perhaps 
>ultimately junking it.


Dear Hans,
let try to get the things straight. The Internet was first the 
JonPostelNet, a private network system, centrally managed through the DNS 
registrations, open to the public and owned by the USG. To organize it the 
USG signed a cooperative contract with NetSol, got the RIRs established, 
trusted the ISOC enough to run the IETF, IAB, etc. while the root server 
system was working fine by itself and the IANA was not a big pain for them 
to manage with a single secretary.

So there were no real problem with status-quo. Hence the feeling among the 
main initial partners that status-quo is stability and reliability. Hence 
the strategy to keep us talking on the way we should talk rather than 
talking about what we have to do.

Yet, there were some issues to be addressed due to the international and 
usage growth: ccTLDs, @large, risks on NetSols due to its new size. This 
called for clarification of the relations with the ccTLDs, attention paid 
to the individual users, diversification of the contractors, protection of 
the IP rights. Only a private legal interface could sign quickly all the 
contracts it required (Joe Sims calls the ICANN a DNS dynamic).

The past years have shown a few errors of this approach which are to be tuned.

1. the ISOC had not the adequate structure to address the resulting 
difference in size and in number of the interested parties. This is 
currently addressed.

2. the JonPostelNet is actually only a major and decreasing part of the 
international network. So; the correct approach is a) to manage the JPN by 
its own, b) to relate with the other parts of the network system through an 
adapted interface. This is what the Reform is about with a separated CNSO 
for the ccTLDs and international stakeholders (not only the ccTLDs as 
unique foreign partners, but everyone).

3. the individual users are too many, too diversified. Its is not possible 
to relate with them directly, so a Congress of delegates is needed. This is 
the proposed NomCom the composition and the size of which will be determining.

4. the regulated contractor diversification suffered from being labeled 
"competition". However it is now established with alternatives to "com" and 
"net", a direct support of individuals (name), and a few test beds about 
specialized TLDs. It can now be digested through the GNSO.

5. the 1995 G7 industry leaders' general demands about IP rights has been 
satisfied through the UDRP. The GNSO should permit to contain the new 
possible problem (WLS) among registries.

6. giving the IANA and the relations with the SSRAC to the ICANN was a good 
way to legitimize it, but a direct involvement lead to too much rigidity; 
blocking the DNS necessary evolution. The Reform Committee seems to have a 
correct approach: to keep a certain control on the policy definition but 
delegating operations. Yet they have no working method for this policy 
definition yet.


The three problems we have to address together at the structural level are :

1. the NomCom organization, which has to be in some way the Congress of the 
Internet.
2. the CNSO which may be the major issue if it tries to impeach the ccTLDs 
from allying elsewhere.
3. the ICP preparation and consensus formation system


But the infrastructural level - the one IMHO which really counts (without a 
network there is no need to know how to organize it) - is still to be 
addressed. This can be inside or outside of the ICANN. My feeling is that 
there is confusion there. The reform committee thinks (IMHO) correctly that 
it is not in the ICANN field of concern but that the ICANN may help, the 
GAC (EEC report) seems to consider that this is its own role to participate 
into in within the ICANN.

This concerns:

1. the bandwidth availability
     the Internet has become a major single customer to the Telcos 
industry. This creates a lot of risks on both sides. The current macro 
situation is not stable. A "dot-telecom" dialog is to develop urgently. A 
concerted polylog (Telcos, Internet, content, society, Govs) is to be 
established with all the stakeholders about the type of applications they 
intend to develop and therefore about the needed bandwidth and the advised 
technological/marketing alliances. The WSIS preparation may help.

2. the delegation of the IANA functions
     - addresses in continuity with other systems
     - standards and major applications (like whois)
     - namespaces administration
     a cooperation with the ITU/T should be carefully investigated

3. the evolution of the DNS system.
     - parallel root servers systems deployment
     - root obsolescence and replacement by namespace directory services
     - value added and extended features
     governments, entrepreneurs and probably Telcos will probably take the 
lead if ICANN does not move extremely quickly.

jfc