[governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history

[John Curran]

On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Perhaps in the context of this discussion it is worth looking at how ICANN
> evolved from the work on Jon Postel, how Postel at one stage favoured an ITU
> solution, and how the USG reacted to this. What is below combines a little
> of my writings with a large input from Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I would urge
> you to read this, as it outlines the initial involvement of many players
> still involved in internet governance debates.

Peter -
 
Yes, I lived through it (and have the scars to prove it...)

> Ira Magaziner, US President Clinton’s Internet adviser and the main
> architect of what later became ICANN, replied in a hearing before the US
> Congress to the European criticism: “The purpose of the Commerce Department
> proposal is to improve the technical management of the DNS only. The Green
> Paper does not propose a monolithic Internet Governance system. Frankly we
> doubt that the Internet should be governed by a single body or plan.”
> 
> Jon Postel again changed his plans and took active part in the debate which
> led to a “White Paper”, published in June 1998 by the US Department of
> Commerce.” [ii] 
> <http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/internet-governance-history-writte
> n-2010/#_edn2> 

Indeed. Per the White Paper, the goal was to have "separate, diverse, and 
robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and 
recommending for the board's approval policy related to matters within each 
council's competence.  Such councils, if developed, should also abide by 
rules and decision-making processes that are sound, transparent, protect 
against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process 
for the presentation of petitions for consideration."

Note the absence of the word "constituency" in the above.  Also note also 
these councils were envisioned to produce fully developed policy to the 
ICANN Board for approval, i.e. the Board's primary role was oversight; to 
make sure that coordination happened among its supporting organizations and
that any policy was developed by sound and transparent means.  This makes 
for a nice small ICANN, with a boring job of insuring coordination between 
the Name and NUmber supporting organizations and occasionally approving 
consensus policy that emerged from them...

Alas, we completely departed from original blueprint, when in Singapore the 
ICANN Board decided that rather than select among initial DNSO proposals 
received (as called for in its Bylaws), that the Board would instead design 
the structure of new DNSO based on staff input, and then simply modify the 
Bylaws to make this possible:

   <http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/singapore/singapore-statement.htm>
   <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-04mar99.htm>

The result: instead of having singular DNS Support Organization which would 
have had to achieve internal consensus in order to recommend policies to the
Board,  we have an abundance of constituencies all directly vying for the 
Board's attention to their particular needs. The very concept of having
"constituencies" implies people aligned behind particular positions, as
opposed to the White Paper's model of a standards setting body whereby 
individuals and entities are equally "able to participate by expressing 
a position and its basis, and having that position considered."

People ask me: Why is the Address Support Organization (ASO) so quiet? 
Where is all of the policy development happening?  My answer is always 
the same: the ASO is operating according the original ICANN model as
specified by the White Paper and ICANN's bylaws; policy development 
happens continuously throughout the year in geographically diverse 
locations with remote participation and open & transparent processes, 
and it is only the consensus results that the ASO brings forth to the 
ICANN Board for its consideration.  We coordinate with the technical 
folks in the IETF when we or they have need, and while it is a complete 
pain that we need to have complete alignment in order to advance policy,
you'd be amazed what is does for encouraging actual listening to others
positions and really considering their views.

/John









____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t