Hi, Well done, Radar has a good audience and different than others. hope that we can reach other media. Rafik 2009/10/3 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > FYI: > * > * > *http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/icann-without-restraints-the-d.html* > * > * > *ICANN without restraints: the difficulties of coordinating stakeholders<http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/icann-without-restraints-the-d.html> > *** > by Andy Oram <http://radar.oreilly.com/andyo> > > People interested in coalitions and policy-making on a global scale--topics > that are increasingly relevant in a world whose borders are irrelevant to > carbon dioxide, flu viruses, and other critical entities--need to learn from > other organizations that are dealing with these issues. This week brings > particularly important news about the Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers (ICANN) <http://icann.org/>, which has been making > policy for eleven years under a number of difficult premises: > > - It was created hastily and arbitrarily without roots in the > communities most interested in its mandate. > - Its concept of stakeholders is boundless, potentially involving > anyone who uses the Internet or gets information that has passed at some > point over the Internet. > - Its reach is global, and its decisions are affected by issues of > language and culture. > > Those in charge of ICANN have compounded these intrinsic problems with poor > decisions and bad leadership. But ICANN is currently undergoing one of its > regular reorganizations. Hopes were on the rise that it may overcome the > barriers I've listed as well as its own history--at least till this week. > On September 30, the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is ICANN's publicly > accountable overseer, announced the most important decision affecting ICANN > since its founding: the U.S. government will give up its role as overseer<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm#video>and make ICANN independent. ICANN's missteps in the past pushed the Commerce > Department to seriously consider revoking ICANN's authority. But that can > never happen now. > > Instead, a body called the Governmental Advisory Committee provides input > to be heeded or ignored by ICANN, at its option. And because this committee > is so diffuse, its members possessing different interests and agendas, one > can hardly imagine them coming together to strongly voice opposition to a > controversial ICANN decision. > > Reactions among Internet observers also indicate that this unprecedented > assignment of authority was handled in secrecy, which is an odd way, to say > the least, for a government agency to carry out a critical policy. > > Therefore, the questions that ICANN's history raises about governance and > participation become even more relevant. > > *The stakes for ICANN and its stakeholders* > From October 25-30, at ICANN's regular meeting in Seoul<http://sel.icann.org/>, > board members will meet with representatives of its noncommercial users > constituency (NCUC) to consider a proposal to improve relations with these > communities. The non-commercial users constituency is an umbrella for a wide > range of interested parties, ranging from political action organizations and > academic researchers to artists and journalists who use the Internet for > distribution and collaboration. > > To some extent, the non-commercial users constituency is the soul of ICANN, > where the domain-name registrars and registries are its machinery and the > commercial users constituency its fuel. ICANN needs all these > constituencies--now they're being renamed "stakeholder groups"--but they are > currently way out of balance. > > Robin Gross, a long-time volunteer activist with the NCUC, described to me > a regulatory environment on ICANN that is all too familiar to people working > for the public interest in other settings. The other three stakeholder > groups pay experts to work full-time on ICANN issues; these experts travel > to all the meetings and are on a first-name basis with the board and staff. > In contrast, the NCUC is cobbled together from volunteers having different > interests and backgrounds, often struggling to fund a single representative > at official gatherings. > > It should be pointed out that the four stakeholder groups work through just > one branch of ICANN--but an important branch that deals with the issues of > most interest to ICANN observers, the top-level domains such as *.com*, * > .org*, and *.edu*. This branch of ICANN, called the Generic Names > Supporting Organization (GNSO), is the focus of the current reorganization<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/> > . > > The source of hope lies in the increased role assigned to the NCUC within > the GNSO. (Spend just a couple more hours learning about ICANN, and you too > will start eliminating natural language from your speech in favor of > abbreviations.) > > GNSO was originally made up of six constituencies. The NCUC used to be one > of them, and commercial interests encompassed three. Now that the GNSO is > made up of four stakeholder groups, one of which corresponds to the NCC, > non-commercial interests seem to have a correspondingly larger footprint. > But even though only one stakeholder group is now officially commercial, it > has far more in common than the NCC does with the registrars and registries > (all businesses, of course) to which the other two stakeholder groups are > dedicated. So the non-commercial interests are still a minority, not to > mention a poor cousin. > > Having made some progress and been acknowledged as an important set of > stakeholders, the NCUC is focused now on the question of how their > representatives will be elected. I won't go into detail about this question, > because I'd lose my readers after the sixth or seventh paragraph, but you > can take a peek at a press release from NCUC activists<http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/public-interest-groups-in>. > A more general examination of the GNSO reorganization has been written by > Professor Milton Mueller<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/2/6/4083962.html> > . > > The important point I want to make is that ICANN is on the cusp of > improving the effectiveness of the NCUC, and through them the wider public > interest that goes beyond the interests of individual registrars, trademark > holders, etc. > * > * > *In search of a responsive governing body* > I've covered the policy issues in domain names repeatedly over the years<http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/keyword/index.html#dns>and have followed ICANN since its > first public meeting in 1998<http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/dns_newcorp.html>. > Most of its attempts at public input exemplified practices to avoid--notably > its idealistic but unfeasible worldwide membership program<http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/wr/icann_member.html> > . > > Thoughtful observers decided long ago that formal democracy won't work in a > geographically distributed organization with no boundaries to membership. > Attempts to make policy through voting, or to reach consensus on anything, > will falter from differences in the ability of stakeholders to gain access > and participate, the futility of winning sustained participation from > scattered stakeholders, and the barriers to communication and > community-building. The NCUC is concerned right now with installing a voting > system that facilitates communication and community-building in the NCUC > rather than undermining it. > > Thus, an organization without clear roots in geography or a particular > interest group must be governed in a centralized manner, but remain > responsive to outside pressure. This is where ICANN has lapsed. It has > always been dominated by its staff, and has drawn most of its board members > from outsiders with little background in its subject matter. The staff are > accustomed to doing whatever they think best and, when faced with a storm of > public protest, hunkering down for the duration. > > Given this analysis, the decision by the Commerce Department to let go the > reins is disturbing. A body with a history like ICANN needs to be concerned > that external judgment will ultimately be rendered on its decisions. Reviews > by a responsible government agency would be far more meaningful than a > diluted participation in a forum of many competing interests. > > But ICANN has a new chair who, according to Robin Gross, wants to overturn > the board's traditional rubber-stamp role. Furthermore, several board > members have reacted warmly to approaches from NCUC members and have agreed > to meet directly with them in Seoul. The decision on the voting structure > for the NCUC will be small but significant, and will tell us a lot about the > ability of this organization to reflect a wide range of interests. > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > > > >