[governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Dear Rhonda,

Whilst I agree with many of the points you have made to date, here is where
I am not sure I totally agree. Pre-1996, the collaborative process was
amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any formal
structures (I can share my experience with the APNIC process, etc). IANA
especially needed more formal structure, hence many of those efforts e.g.
Postel draft, Green and White Paper, etc. I think it was the process of
trying to be more inclusive and international was interesting, this was the
first time other governments, other players etc were being consulted on how
to "internationalise" the "oversight" issue (IMHO). As you mentioned, when
ICANN was being formed, there was no indication of  looking for others
opinions or thoughts, and hence what I mean it started off "broke" for those
who thought they were helping to create something more neutral and
international, through the consultation process.

There is much to be learnt from the Internet model of cooperation e.g IETF
rough concensus etc, but there was also during those days some recognition
that using webpages and emails alone did not create inclusiveness and
legitimacy. Here in Asia many of these bodies online and offline became felt
as a North Asia versus South Asia issue- different stages of development and
different styles of working, etc. Even ICANN had issues that not everyone
could attend their meetings in exotic places, whilst ironically they held
them in exotic places sometimes to try to be inclusive. So I think we need
to learn from everywhere, as you suggested from books about Netizen. 

Yes, I agree there is much that happened post ICANN that also contributes to
what does not work. It is not just pre-1996, but pre and post ICANN, from
other Internet bodies, and also we should learn from non-Internet bodies
talking today about "true forms of Governance", organisations that have
studies crossculturalism and its impact on organisation, etc. I guess this
is what I meant that let's understand what is "broke" and then fix it or
before suggesting creating something new.

Regards,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:24 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene
Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development -
Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration


I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible.

What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was not a
helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere.

The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide
models that are helpful.

The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it
occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the
world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process that
carries forward this model.

It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place.

It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what had been
developed that was a significant new model, and to see the problems this new
model had to deal with. The model is the Internet,
*not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create
something like ICANN.

So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates a new
diversion.

Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to make
the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

(see especially chapter 7 for example)


I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes once there
was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some legal entity.

By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had been
abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process.

Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed to
act as blinders.

with best wishes

Ronda


On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> Thanks Paul for that perspective. I agree that we need to see what has 
> not worked i.e. is it because of USG oversight or lack internal 
> controls, or perceived possibilities of "doomsday" or lack of trust 
> with it based in the US or ....."whatever".. i.e. what is the problem 
> we are trying to fix...what have we not managed to fix post ICANN 
> formation (before we jumping to a conclusion on the solution).
>
> Having said that, I agree with your choice of words in the last para 
> "that ICANN was originally suppose to have or perhaps could still 
> have". For me, I realise that ICANN actually started off on the wrong 
> foot, as it was created having short-circuit of an open international 
> collaborative process (which ironically the USG started themselves as 
> way back as 1996- the Green and White Paper process and the IFWP 
> process). So this did not give it a good start anyway. If you recall 
> Stuart Lynn one of the former CEOs of ICANN himself announced in 2002 
> or was it 2003 that ICANN was broke and the process started again to 
> try and fix it again. People like Adam who were part of the whole 
> process since 1996, would be able to give some answers here.
>
> I guess it may be that one could ask- Is it harder to fix what is 
> broke or create something new. Again, once we focus on what we exactly 
> we would like to fix, the appropriate solutions will become clearer.
>
> Just thought I would add my 2cts worth.
>
> Laina
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration
>
>
> # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland 
> # or Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could 
> accuse # them of having an imperial agenda.
>
> i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation 
> with international governance-- is the right steward for top level 
> naming and numbering authority.  ICANN seems to have some problems 
> fulfilling that role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal 
> controls or
> whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral 
> government over the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to 
> have, and perhaps, could still have.
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

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