[governance] What ICANN Do

[Dan Krimm]

So far this preliminary "bridging document" looks like the bridge to
nowhere, so I have to assume you are not finished yet.  Maybe you'd
consider connecting up the other end?  Here's a link you may be interested
in adding, for example: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm

And as long as we're all holding hands and wishing, how about a wish that
ICANN would include *clear boundaries* to its mandate in its bylaws?  That
is: a *negative* mandate as well as a positive mandate, so that the phrase
"reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions"
(Bylaws, Section 1, Number 3) has some definition and authority to
constrain run-away policy-makers who want to decide for themselves what is
"reasonable and appropriate" about the relationship of the policies they
are deciding in their own narrow interests.

For example, maybe add something specific about ICANN policy not having
anything to do with *semantic characteristics* of anything having to do
with Internet addressing?  Such semantic considerations seem completely
unreasonable and inappropriate to apply to any ICANN policies regulating
Internet addressing.

Just as there are things that ICANN should address, there things that ICANN
should not address.  There should be some care taken to outline exactly
what is inside and outside ICANN's jurisdiction, and semantic
considerations should be outside.

What *can't* ICANN do?  Put it in writing.  Vague and abstract adjectives
are not adequate to define boundaries for political regulation.  They just
open huge loopholes in the policy process, which allows powerful lobbies to
create much mischief.  You can't have a rule of law without a clear law in
the first place.

One of the most effective things you could do with these bridges is lead
people to the controversial topics where they ought to have an input.
Might light a flame under their butts to come and participate -- nothing
like alarm to get a reaction.  Be careful what you ask for, you might get
it.

;-)

Dan



At 3:41 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> What's I'd like to see is reference to the details that impact
>> actual policy making at ICANN.
>
>
>I agree with you.
>
>But the context in which I stuck in that link is in the broad explanation of
>what ICANN is, what it does and what it does not do.
>
>You have to have various levels of documents that, with luck, pull people in
>to the point where they are sitting down talking actual policy wording with
>a full and clear grasp of the issues.
>
>I call em "bridging documents". Although since everyone incessantly goes on
>about "learning curves" these days, what about "cable-car docs" ;-)
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:42 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] What ICANN Do
>
>At 1:40 PM -0800 12/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>
>>Does this list think it would be of much benefit if I created a factsheet
>or
>>somesuch that clearly defines what ICANN does and does not do?
>>
>>I knocked up some wording that I have been soft-testing here:
>>http://www.icann.org/participate/what-icann-do.html
>>
>>Comments welcome.
>
>
>Kieren,
>
>This is an interesting but minimal beginning.  What's I'd like to see is
>reference to the details that impact actual policy making at ICANN.
>
>For example, when outlining the organizational structure of ICANN, it's
>very useful to delineate the lines of authority (who can say no to someone
>else at what stage of the process, who selects who has representational
>authority, etc.).
>
>What you have here is just the very top-level overview of what's going on
>(and much of this sort of thing can be found elsewhere on the ICANN web
>site), but the real meat of ICANN's operations is down in the belly.  I'd
>love to see this expanded down there.
>
>For a more specific example, in the accountability section you mention an
>"independent Nominating Committee" but without detailing the process of
>selecting NomCom members themselves (and you should point out how the
>various constituencies have a formal hand in selecting and constraining
>that representation -- see: http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm#1_4 -- 5 ALAC,
>2 BC, 1 each from Registries, Registrars, ccNSO, ISCPC, IPC, ASO, Board
>academic appt., NCUC, IETF, and TLG) it is not clear to the reader that the
>word "independent" is actually materially arguable here, given that it
>takes the authorization from one of the groups listed in order to get onto
>the NomCom as a voting member in the first place.  So even though there may
>be no other body within ICANN that has the authority to overrule the NomCom
>decisions, many of those bodies have input into NomCom informally through
>their own representation.  (I understand that the claim of "independence"
>of the NomCom may have some significant legal and/or regulatory
>ramifications, so this could be treading on thin ice.  This is where your
>job gets delicate in the highest degree.)
>
>So if you left it at this, it would most definitely not be "transparent"
>because the bird's-eye-view of ICANN structure really does not do justice
>to understanding how power really flows under the hood (i.e., how policy is
>actually made at this institution -- will you make reference to the motto
>of "rough consensus and running code" as the iconographic deliberative
>model, and describe how that works in practice?).
>
>If you are going to do this at all you should try to do a very thorough
>job, because otherwise your effort might be viewed as an attempt to
>obfuscate and finesse rather than to truly inform.
>
>And then we get into disagreements, and people start throwing around ad
>hominems, and we just get distracted from the substantive issues all over
>again.
>
>Dan
>
>PS -- Granted, some of the important details apparently have not been
>settled yet, such as the Board's authority for "line item veto" or
>boundaries of jurisdiction for overruling policies that arise from SOs.
>The ICANN "constitution" (in terms of competing authority of checks and
>balances) is not actually fully completed in full detail, so far as I know.
>So it may be that in order to do this project right you would have to
>unearth some of the very contentious points that cause so much
>consternation in the IG community.  But to avoid that level of detail might
>simply be interpreted as weaving wool for the eyes.  Again, a highly
>delicate task.  I'm sorry that I don't have an easy "consensus" solution
>for you here.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance