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

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Tue Oct 25 04:19:18 EDT 2011


Hi
 
is there a way "back into the future" in an ICANN 3.5 with a more decentralized decisions making capacity below the ICANN Board (via the SOs liaised to the ACs) and a more decentralized overview (via the multistakeholder review teams) above the ICANN Board? In this scheme we would be back with a new version of the hour-glass model where the ICANN Board is not more than the interlocutor (and coordinator) between bottom uop (open and transparent) policy development and its review and oversight. 
 
Wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von John Curran
Gesendet: Di 25.10.2011 02:21
An: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 - more history



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



____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list