[ncdnhc-discuss] Board retreats and fully transparent process for ICANN

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
: I realize that this fond dream drives a lot of what you (and many
: others) do, but it is completely without foundation.  ICANN is NOT
: setting itself up to be a government, and even if it wanted to, it
: couldn't.

   Kent, maybe you haven't read this ICANN "reform" working paper yet.
Jamie

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-process-07may02.ht
m
Of course, to those who believe that ICANN, having no governmental mandate,
should never act in the absence of consensus, this lack of ability to act is
a feature, not a bug. If there is no consensus, they would argue, the
"market" should be allowed to function freely without ICANN interference.
Only in this way, they argue, will the tendency toward over-regulation be
avoided. In addition, they argue that it is simply inappropriate for a
non-governmental body to, in effect, claim "regulatory" jurisdiction over a
private enterprise on the basis of the views of third parties, and over the
opposition of that enterprise. Absent some form of governmental action, they
argue, or the consent of the affected party or parties, there is no basis
for ICANN - by definition a private, non-governmental body - to force
compliance with anything, no matter how desirable it may be from the
perspective of others in the ICANN community.

This argument has merit. No rational person wants to see ICANN become the
"regulator" of the Internet. On the other hand, this begs the hard question:
if consensus is required for any action, doesn't that create perverse
incentives for those with narrow commercial interests to veto any consensus
that is not immediately in their interest? We believe that it can be
persuasively argued that a properly structured and functioning ICANN is the
ideal mechanism for resolving such debates, even if (and maybe especially
if) the parties with direct commercial interests cannot come to a consensus
view. Assuming it is properly structured and functioning (and those are
obviously critical assumptions), ICANN is both a desirable and potentially
an effective vehicle for global resolution of issues relating to the DNS
where today there is no global alternative.

The fact is that the Internet, and its component part the Domain Name
System, is a global resource. It is not amenable to multiple national
regulatory approaches - at least if the goal is to allow the Internet to
continue to provide ever more opportunities to ever more people at a
relatively low cost. And in any event national regulation, given the nature
of the resource, is likely to be ineffective. Thus, the options are some
form of global governmental body, or a global private-sector body. There do
not appear to be any other workable alternatives.

A reasonable argument can be made that, given the nature of the Internet and
the DNS - both their global character and the critical role of
interoperability and stability to their continuing function - a global,
private-sector organization like ICANN is the ideal vehicle for balancing
the legitimate private interests of individuals, groups, and entities, on
the one hand, and the enormous public interest in the continued effective
operation of the Internet on the other. We understand and accept that this
could only be the case if we assume (1) the proper structure and operation
of ICANN, including critically the proper limitation of the scope of its
activities to those that are reasonably necessary to maintain, promote, or
improve the continued effective operation (stability, interoperability, and
utility) of the DNS, (2) the ability of all interested parties to discuss
and debate in an open and transparent way, (3) the ability to have ICANN's
decisions produced through another open and transparent process, and (4)
that such a resolution would be effective (i.e. is enforceable) throughout
the global resource that is the Internet. But if we assume those conditions,
such an ICANN, it seems to us, would have great value to many (if not most)
of the members of the global Internet community, even if the resolution of
any particular issue may not be all to their liking.


:
: --
: Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
: kent at songbird.com                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
:
: _______________________________________________
: Discuss mailing list
: Discuss at icann-ncc.org
: http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
: