[governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with Elliot Noss

Sat Aug 13 11:59:09 EDT 2005

I had the pleasure of meeting Elliot Noss from Tucows earlier this  
week. As we are both based in Toronto, I thought it of interest to  
chat about WSIS and exchange views on and about internet governance  
and the recently released WGIG report.

Among many things discussed,  Elliot pointed out a recent article of  
his, one where he paints a far more  positive picture of ICANN than  
the governance caucus seems to do in it's current (draft) response to  
the WGIG report. At the same time, he also points out that the battle  
for control of the internet is really about Freedom. This is good to  
hear, and has me thinking about what language (if any) we have about  
that core issue in the response document that is being drafted.

The meeting with Elliot has me thinking that we should be careful in  
what we ask for, what we suggest and recommend at the upcoming WSIS  
prepcom. If we aren't careful, governments could very well use the  
pretext of our calls for reform to create a far worse, a  far more  
closed structure than what we have now with ICANN.

anyway,  something to think about...

regards

Robert

--

CNET News.com    http://www.news.com/
A battle for the soul of the Internet

By Elliot Noss
http://news.com.com/A+battle+for+the+soul+of+the+Internet/ 
2010-1071_3-5737647.html

Without garnering much attention, a battle is raging for the soul of  
the Internet.

The United Nations and the International Telecommunications Union are  
trying to wrest control of domain names and DNS and IP addresses from  
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This battle  
manifests itself through the United Nations-created World Summit on  
the Information Society and the ITU-led Working Group on Internet  
Governance.

While the Internet itself is essentially a series of protocols  
adhered to by consent, it relies on a single authoritative root at  
its core. This assures that Internet users end up where they should  
when they type "www.news.com" into their browsers. Anything but  
uniqueness with this vital resource would result in collision and  
confusion. The same would be true for e-mail. Unless senders could be  
sure there was only one unique identifier for a recipient, they could  
not use e-mail with confidence.

Both the United Nations and the ITU have their reasons for trying to  
take control of these vital resources from ICANN. For the United  
Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the nation state  
structure and could become a model for similar efforts covering  
subject matter most appropriately dealt with at a global level.

For the ITU, gaining control of core Internet resources represents an  
opportunity to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and gain a  
greater measure of relevance in the IP networking world. The ITU  
doesn't see itself as merely an overseer of the old circuit-switched  
networks, which it presides over today. Rather, it views itself as  
the overseer of all networks, including the Internet.

While ICANN has its flaws, it also possesses important and unique  
characteristics. Two are worthy of special note.

First, ICANN's form of governance explicitly includes policy,  
technical, business and user interests under one roof. Each interest  
group has a formal role and voice in both policy making and  
governance. Each has a stake in the proceedings, and each is an  
important part of the system. (Yes, users' voices need be heard more,  
and as an active participant in the ICANN process and member of the  
2005 ICANN Nominating Committee, I will continue to work toward that  
goal.) Having these combined interests explicitly inside the process  
avoids some of the perversions that we have seen in other forms of  
governance, campaign finance being perhaps the starkest example.

Second, ICANN is a truly global organization. It is global in the  
sense that the individuals involved each represent one of the above- 
mentioned interests but not national governments. This is an  
important concept, in that the Internet is truly a global resource,  
but it is this unique element that creates the greatest challenge. We  
have no model for managing a global resource of this nature. There  
are numerous models for managing international resources--resources  
being managed between nations--but that is not what the Internet is.

In this regard, ICANN mirrors the Internet in that it works by "rough  
consensus." The checks and balances are systemic. This is what has  
allowed for the price of domain names to drop by 50 percent to 75  
percent over the last five years, while service levels have increased  
dramatically. This is what has allowed the Uniform Domain Name  
Dispute Resolution Process to eliminate cybersquatting of trademarks.

The World Summit on Information Society contains 40 delegates,  
including members from Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,  
Tunisia, Pakistan, Syria, Russia and Egypt. If the United Nations  
controlled domain names and IP addresses, the ability of countries to  
censor the Internet would be greatly enhanced, as would the ability  
to tax or impose other regulatory burdens on these resources in order  
to fund unrelated projects of any kind.

In fact, if the United Nations and the ITU were successful, it is not  
difficult to envision a balkanization of the Internet, as whole  
portions of the network decided they did not want to rely on the  
United Nations and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If  
that balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global  
economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum  
United Nations postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet  
pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

For the United Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the  
nation-state structure.
The United Nations and the ITU are putting forward two main arguments  
for replacing ICANN. They claim such a move is necessary to wrest  
control of the Internet from the United States and that ICANN is a  
private organization, beholden to no one and representing no one.

To be clear, ICANN is a not-for-profit California corporation that  
nominally reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It operates  
under a memorandum of understanding with the agency that is reviewed  
and renewed in six-month intervals.

Despite this, ICANN is not American--it is global. There are three  
Americans on a 15-person board of directors. There are six Americans  
on the 22-person generic names-supporting organization council, the  
main policy-making body. Two Americans are on the 10-person at-large  
advisory council. There has not been a meeting in the United States  
since November 2001, and the earliest possibility of a U.S. meeting  
is in June 2007, a 17-meeting gap. (The last North American meeting  
was in Montreal in June 2003, and the next is in Vancouver, British  
Columbia, in December.)

As for it being representative, ICANN has always had one prerequisite  
for involvement: a willingness to take the time and effort to  
participate. There is active representation from Internet communities  
from around the world. The level of participation, the quality of  
participation and the output of the process have steadily improved  
over ICANN's history.

Neither the United Nations nor the ITU can make any of these claims.  
Participation in their processes requires a position with a national  
government or a telecommunications monopoly, neither of which are  
known for their deep appreciation and understanding of the Internet.

There is no doubt that both the United Nations and the ITU are much  
more adept at politics than either ICANN staff or the vast majority  
of participants in the ICANN process. That makes the threat here all  
the more real.

It is important to remember that we all rely on the rich ecosystem  
that is the free Internet. We are all beneficiaries of the innovation  
it spawns, the information it provides and the interaction it  
supports. We cannot take this for granted.

Companies that rely on a free Internet--and there are few technology  
companies that don't--need to become active in the ICANN process  
through the business or ISP Constituencies. Other institutions and  
nonprofits need to get involved through the noncommercial constituency.

Companies, institutions and individuals from around the world that  
have access to their governments' decision makers need to let them  
know that the Internet needs to stay free and that supporting ICANN  
supports that principle. Individuals who care about the future of the  
Internet and believe they can contribute to creating a better ICANN  
and preserving a freer Internet should think about the ICANN- 
nominating committee's call for Statements of Interest, which seeks  
qualified candidates to help the organization move forward.

The Internet has contributed more to freedom, education and  
innovation than any other advance of the last number of decades. It  
deserves to be protected from the people and the institutions that do  
not share an appreciation for preserving the values on which the  
Internet was founded.

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance