I got to tell you that at my university (and the ones around), most "progressive" students (and aren't we almost all progressive) that hears about ICANN are ready to throw it under the bus for its "private" governance model (read: the participation ― and presumed domination ―of commercial entities in the governance mechanisms).

I'm as progressive as one can hope to be ― or so I am told by conservatives ― but have always found a certain attachment to its model, and want to see it succeed. This conflict is, btw, why I joined this group. I couldn't share everyone's opinion that this was such a bad idea to begin with (Lauren's, of NNSquad, is very indicative of the learned-yet-popular wisdom on ICANN). Sure, when I was reading Rony & Rony and Prof. Mueller's book some time ago, I was rooting for IFWP (and Postel to stick to its guns re:root redirection) but in the end ― apart from the foundation issue which I will never be happy with until resolved ― I now root for ICANN to be all it can be. I noticed the puns. They were unintended.

So, I don't know if this glitch is such an opportunity to reinvent (I think not), but we should certainly be ready for when such an opportunity is taken on by others and brought down on us by others.

It is funny and interesting in a way, that Milton would probably (I don't want to speak on his behalf, but such is my impression) not approve of IFWP-like moves (or was it BWG? can't remember) to try to clarify and explicitly settle the foundational attributes of IANA "contracts" and severe all ties to US's pretensions.

The funny part is that RTR is indubitably responsible for attracting at least some people into ICANN and perhaps NCSG, and I'm sure that many such people will come into ICANN with the pro rfc-attributed (or community-attributed) iana contract preferences. The interesting part is that I guess it's a testament to how thoroughly interesting and relatively objective (not a big believer in the possibility of this one) Milton's RTR was. It made me like ICANN more than I disliked its "private" governance mechanisms.

One (of the many) threat to ICANN's system would be that progressive people like the ones that are here stop believing that they can matter sometimes, and if that happens, if the balance seems *irredeemably* skewed towards one of the many commercial worldviews, then nothing but apathy could rein in the legitimacy backlash. Apathy is strong, but you can't count on it forever. That goes to the internal governance model, but I don't have a ready-made reinvention opinion on this complex subject.

Another threat is directly related to ICANN's (IANA's, rather) foundation. Those are complex social problems with complex ramifications and distribution of forces, and as a practical matter, I can understand people not wanting to jump into them. But, like I said, someone else will most likely make us jump, so its not too early to start thinking about it.

Something to think about: I'm sure when you Professors out there talk about the complex organizational history of the Internet, you notice right away how ICANN's polical capital is small when compared to, say, IETF. Yet IETF is also "private" governance!

There are reasons for this difference in symbolic capital, and I would argue that the foundation issue is paramount amongst them.

My provisional take to fix this low symbolic capital in two easy steps:

1- fix foundation/severe ties to NTIA

2- bring back at-large election

[3-do no evil!]

Nicolas



On 4/21/2012 9:56 AM, Mark Leiser wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">As a bit of a politics junkie myself, I have to say I disagree with the learned Professor Mueller's metaphor. 

It is arguable that the US Capitol building is not home to one of the world's "first democracies"; however, for arguments sake, lets say it is...

The question should be framed as follows, "if the Capitol building collapses due to incompetent construction, and in the aftermath, the opportunity presents itself to re-think the nature of democracy, then should we? And if so, then what changes should we bring about?"

The same should apply to ICANN and what is going on now. 


Mark R. Leiser
Phd Student
School of Law
Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
Room 709, Level 7,
Graham Hills Building
50 George St, G1 1QE
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow, Scotland.
Email: [log in to unmask]          
Phone: +447825777686

The University of Strathclyde is a Charitable Body, Registered in Scotland, Number SCO15263





On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Carlos

Neither of us is saying it's not a big mess that won't have to be cleaned up.  Just that it's not obvious it requires a new round of organizational reinvention navel gazing at this particular juncture.

But I'm glad you think do anything merrily!

BD

PS:  Please, Milton is not a political scientist, he just plays one.  We like states (not of nature).   He's actually a former art student gone bad, i.e. degree in communication.

On Apr 21, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Wow, Milton, this is really amazing. This is not a simple
> "implementation mistake". This involved serious breach of privacy of
> expensive applications which are part of investment strategies by
> business organizations in most cases. There is an obvious liability
> issue here involved. It cannot be dismissed as just "a computer form
> that did not work as expected", and cannot be left in the hands of the
> same staff which caused the problem. And you are not a computer
> scientist, you are a political scientist as far as I recall, which
> surprises me even more.
>
> And Bill Drake merrily embarks on the dismissing argument, what is going
> on with you people? :(
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 04/21/2012 03:54 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> I agree.  The governance model has issues, but this is a separate
>> matter.  We've just gone through the whole GNSO restructuring,
>> ramping up the AoC process, etc.  ICANN doesn't need and probably
>> couldn't handle another extended bout of navel-gazing debate about
>> reinvention right now.  It needs to let the dust settle for awhile,
>> get new leadership in place, get new gTLDs up and running, sort out
>> IANA, advance the "internationalization" and outreach efforts, etc.
>> Plenty on the plate already.
>>
>> I can't imagine that the business folks that are laying out big cash
>> and maneuvering around new names aren't already screaming about the
>> screw up, or that the management won't be compelled to explain what
>> happened and assure everyone it hasn't skewed the application process
>> for/against anyone.  If there's going to a joint request for info
>> from SO/AC chairs or whatever, fine, but it's not obvious to me NCSG
>> needs to spend a bunch of cycles on this unless folks are looking for
>> something to do.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure I agree with the premise that an implementation
>>> mistake by the staff constitutes grounds for completely reinventing
>>> and rethinking ICANN. Can someone explain the logic of that to me?
>>> For example, if the Capitol building of one of the world's first
>>> democracies, e.g., the USA, had collapsed due to incompetent
>>> construction, would it mean that we should re-think the nature of
>>> democracy?
>>>
>>> I think they need to fix the mistake, fire those responsible, and
>>> move on.
>>>
>>> The root of the problem, to my mind, is not the governance model
>>> but, in this order: a) management problems; b) the rube
>>> Goldberg-like complexity of the new TLD program, and c) the more
>>> than a decade-long delay in accepting a policy, which means that we
>>> are dealing with a sudden flood of 1000+ applications rather than a
>>> steady trickle of 10 or so a year, and which, like b), is a product
>>> of the intense politics swirling around the program.
>>>
>>> Remember that this has never been done before.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ICANN needs to rethink and reorganize itself!
>>>>
>>