[governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Agree with many if not all of your points, and yes we need to move this away
from a for or against ICANN, for or against governments, for or against USG
etc and focus on what is needed to ensure a more universal participation,
legitimacy and accountability. Exactly what I have alo been saying in my
notes to this group.

I guess for me, the fact the Ira Magaziner did come and listen to gov, and
NGO views in Asia and did reflect them in the White Paper, but this did not
get implemented, is what I mean there was a start but it was short
circuited. Neverming, it just my simplistic way of looking at it, and
feeling a good thing started was short circuited by those who knew how to
lobby DOC better, as opposed to purely them giving in to the commercial
interests of the Internet. Actually not unlike what I happening at WGIG and
WSIS. Interesting to see how history repeats itself. Anyway, you are right
that many of the pioneers as you said, including Paul Vixie, Jon Postel, etc
did have this vision but it never quite happened the way it could have.

So yes, I agree with many of your points. Having said that I also agree with
Lee that Jeanette's and Wolfgang's summary of what needs to be done next,
could also be used as a useful guidline for us to be effective in the coming
months. We need to start focusing and having a clear strategy on how to get
"something" done without expecting miracles of course.

I still do not see anything orchestrated through the lists, unless people
are doing this already on the side. Would like to be kept posted and support
these efforts if any.

Regards,
Laina 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronda Hauben [mailto:ronda at panix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:52 PM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development


Hi Laina

Good to hear your response to the issues I raised. It is important that
there be a serious discussion of these issues and too often the question is
framed as "for or against ICANN" rather than "what is needed for managing
the infrastructure of the Internet"


I disagree that with your characterization that the "Pre-1996, the
collaborative process was
> amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any 
> formal structures

as the nature of the change of pre 1996 and post 1996.

The pre-1996 was mainly in the hands of the technical and research community
for a long period of time (as far as I am aware), and protected by an
Acceptible Use Policy (AUP).

There were structures, but they were research or technical in focus.

"The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Process (A
Work in Progress)"

I agree that there were problems that were developing with IANA.

But the response by the US government was to move to create commercial
structures, rather than to determine how to form the needed structures
keeping in mind the need for a technical and scientific orientation for
those structures.

The commercialization diverted the process of determining what was needed.

In my proposal to the US government on how to understake the process of
creating the needed structure, I quote a document where one of the pioneers
of Internet development gave a helpful statement about the criteria needed.


He indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs 
and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His 
testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet 
architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for 
oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and 
flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before privatization - I 
wish to add) because of two important components.


The U.S. Government funded the necessary research, and it made sure the 
networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and 
insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and 
commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically.

He also said that "The relevant U.S. government agencies should remain 
involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain 
oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international 
oversight mechanism can supplant it."

Also he recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to 
the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such 
a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, 
commercial and political wrangling."

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html

These continue to be helpful criteria for what is needed, and this is
all contrary to what ICANN represents.

I would add (as I did in my proposal) that there is a need for a better
feedback mechanism for whatever institutional form is created, so that
those administering and responsible for managing the Internet's 
infrastructure have a clear idea of the effect of the management process
on the users of the Internet.

In this context, having a way for those users who care about the Internet 
and its public purpose have a way to participate in discussing the
problems that develop. (I am referring to 'netizens' not to stakeholders.)
(Stakeholders are traditionally those with a 'self interest' while
'netizens' are those who are concerned with the 'public interest'. 
Those with a 'self interest' need a way to express this interest,
but the decisions can't be a fight among those with commercial or
other self interests. The decisions need to be made by those who
can determine the public interest that is broader than any 'self 
interest')


There are technical organizations that are not commercial. There is
the basis to create what is needed, if one can determine what is
needed.

The discussion of what is needed, however, instead gets diverted to
whether or not ICANN can be fixed or whether or not governments
will be a problem. Neither of these avenues of discussion are helpful
to the problem, as they don't identify the problem.


with best wishes

Ronda

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran 
Greene wrote:


>
> 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
>
>

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