Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi

[Dan Krimm]

I envy all of you for being able to participate in the Nairobi meeting.  I
have only been able to lightly skim the comments here, and don't have time
to absorb the full set of resolutions in detail.

But Milton's comment below gets at what I've always seen as the Achilles
Heel of ICANN, since I first became engaged in ICANN's inner workings:  the
focus on consensus-based governance processes (historically inherited from
IETF and similar bodies) to apply to any issue that might arise within this
jurisdiction.


At 3:35 PM -0500 3/13/10, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>... Some will oppose the grant because they don't like porn. Some will
>oppose it because they don't like competition. Some will oppose it because
>they don't like any new TLDs. Some will oppose it because they are jealous
>of what promises to be a money-making operation, or because they are
>opposed to commercial exploitation of DNS. You name it, someone will come
>up with a reason to oppose it. So in the end, the Board can say "no"
>because .xxx doesn't have the appropriate "community support".
>...
>... the essence of free expression is that you don't have to ask "the
>community" for permission to speak or publish. You are free to publish as
>long as you don't violate someone else's rights. Doesn't matter how
>unpopular your ideas are. Are we in agreement on that? I think that's what
>NCUC stands for wrt the DNS and the addition of top level domains. It
>doesn't matter how unpopular your TLD is, as long as it's not fraudulent
>or violating a trademark or otherwise breaking someone else's rights you
>should be able to start it. ...
>


When you talk about "community support" you are talking about consensus.

There exist issues where consensus legitimately cannot be found within a
broad-based ("big-tent") constituency.  In such cases, there is generally
either a simple majority rule or some sort of multi-coalition compromise
(which is distinct from consensus -- compromise is a reflection of raw
balance of power rather than some sort of deeper intellectual accommodation
that can result in consensus, i.e., genuine agreement).  Or else you get
sheer gridlock (which may be more favorable to some constituents than
others -- this is not a neutral result, but rather an asymmetric result).

If all policy were to require broad consensus, the practical result would
be a broad-based minority veto.  It is as if every decision required a
super-strong super-majority to pass through any governance process.  We can
see how that is working in California legislature and the US Senate, these
days.  The ICANN process seems to require even stronger super-majority than
the 2/3rds proportion or 60% required in these two institutions,
respectively.

We live in a highly polarized political environment, these days, and such
polarization amplifies and exaggerates the problems with super-majority
systems.  In both of these cases, the legislative bodies have ground to a
near halt, especially over important issues that are inevitably contentious
because they are important.


If ICANN is ever to surpass its congenital gridlock, it will have to alter
the minority-veto power that currently constrains it (and has historically
constrained it), which means moving away from a consensus-based process at
some point.

Sticking purely with consensus-based processes guarantees more of the same
moving forward, especially as ICANN's stakeholders continue to diverge in
their fundamental interests in ways that prevent real consensus.

Imagining that all Internet stakeholders have common interests in all
important issue areas is simply at odds with reality.

I don't begin to claim that I understand all the detailed ins and outs of
the institutional culture at ICANN, including that of Board, Staff, and
other stakeholders including the supporting organizations and
stakeholder/constituency groups and advisory councils.

But what it looks like from my rather distant vantage is a part-time
Board/advisory process mired in the gridlock of minority-veto, and then
finessed by the full-time staff according to relationships of unknown
origin, with minimal administrative structures for ongoing transparent
accountability to any general public.

I applaud NCUC/NCSG for attempting to make progress in this
organizationally dysfunctional context.  It is a valiant effort, and it is
vital to "hold the line" against a systemic collapse against the general
public interest, but I cannot say I am optimistic about the prospects for
significant progress.

Nevertheless, I wish you all the best hope for success.  Thank you for
endeavoring to represent a broad public interest in a venue that tends to
focus on its own narrow interests.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.