Dear Readers: In every political system, there are functions which must be performed in order for that system to preserve itself and to extend its influence. It is always difficult to specify all of the essential functions, and, fortunately, it is not necessary that we do so in most cases. There is a feedback loop which announces any significant failure to perform one or more functions. The noise about "individual representation" in "Internet Governance" is one such feeback loop. The particular function in which this feedback loop is grounded is that of "legitimation," a system maintenance task in which the "system" enlists support from the relevant set of political actors, using the rubric that "this government is your legitimate government; work with us." In other words, ICANN should recognize an individual constituency (or otherwise increase the perceived power of individuals as such) if and only if it improves system maintenance and the popular perception of legitimacy. Nothing more is necessary; nothing less will be effective. The function of the individuals' representative within ICANN would be roughly analogous to that of the tribunes of the plebs in Roman Government: not in the sense of giving them a veto power, but in the sense that because the plebs were able to elect tribunes, and because the tribunes were seen as having real power to safeguard the interest of the plebs, the common citizens of Rome continued to support government in the name of SPQR. The people's spokesmen within ICANN need to create the same perception. This is not a new recognition: even the IAHC proposal contained provisions which served no other purpose than to create the perception that the governance system was legitimate; and the IAHC system crashed and burned for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its inability to win over the Internet Community to a belief that the system was, in fact, legitimate. The General Assembly needs to be a whole lot more than PAB in ICANN clothing. However, a mechanism needs to be put in place that would prevent the popular element from capturing the decisionmaking machinery of ICANN. Gee golly gosh, do you think we might have another instance of deliver . . . use . . .refine at work here? That is, let's open the door a little bit. For example, let the GA propose a slate of seven people and let the ICANN board coopt three of them. If the tribunes are too disruptive to the ICANN board, then let us make sure that by-law provisions are in place to permit the ICANN Board to remove the disruptors for misconduct (say, maybe this power should apply to more than just GA tribunes); if it is not enough to improve popular perceptions of fairness and responsiveness, then perhaps the Board will need to coopt a greater number of tribunes. Or perhaps it's time to think outside the lines once again. For example, because ICANN is incorporated as a California not-for-profit, we tend to assume that its management will be committed to a board of directors. However, German corporations have two boards, a board of Managers (which runs the company), and a much broader-based board (which sets general goals and priorities for the company). The latter board has traditionally included employee and public representatives. In our case, we might create a broad-based board most of whose members are drawn from or approved by the GA, and charge that board with ensuring that the DNS (as a political engine) is operated in the public interest. As usual, please disregard that silly trailer, which I cannot disable while using this account. Kevin J. Connolly ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] **********************************************************************
