> 1. I see no reason why either of the things you worry about is not
> reversible.
In theory, nearly everything is reversible.
But, in practice, very little is reversible.
The reason for this is that ICANN's board, a board which has zero members
elected by anyone, has taken upon itself to establish structures (such as
the internal structure of constituencies in the DNSO) which are heavily
biased towards certain points of view.
For instance, the DNSO's constituency structure is so heavily weighted
in favor of large scale commercial interests (especially since the board
explicitly rejected any form of meaningful individual and non-commercial
participation) that there is very little reason to believe that the WIPO
report will be subject to more than mild questions before its adoption.
It is unlikely that the later introduction of token representation from
non-commercial and individual interests will be able to have any impact on
the decisions not being made.
This fear can only be exacerbated by the overt failure of the DNSO's Names
Council to hold an open meeting despite the fact that the material
discussed was nothing less than the creation of a structure to enact the
WIPO report, a matter of great public import.
Why you and the other ICANN members didn't step in -- you were at that
meeting -- and call a halt to such an egregious action speaks volumes.
As for the $1 tax on domain name. Yes, it will be reduced when ICANN's
board imposes a similar tax on IP addresses.
But will the revenue needs of ICANN be reduced? Not with a proposed
budget of several million dollars and more than a dozen employees.
ICANN is rapidly becoming a bloated bureaucracy.
May I suggest a very apt (and very humorous) bit of writing from 1857 --
Chapter X of "Little Dorrit" by Charles Dickens: "Containing the Whole
Science of Government" ( http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/chapter-10.html )
> .... The only thing you
> mention that might not be reversible is the establishment of a mechanism
> for the election of nine Board members by an At Large membership; if done
> badly, and the result is capture by an economic or philosophical (or for
> that matter religious or just mischeivous) minority
What you are espousing is a rejection of democracy.
If there were enough votes in an ungerrymandered ICANN to elect a majority
of board members, then who are we to say that the election is
illegitimate, religious, or mischevious?
As it stands, by-the-way, the elective process to the ICANN board is
currently captured by a very religious and mischevious minority -- in
particular that of commercial interests (the religion of Mammon).
> A diverse
> Membership Advisory Committee spent several months studying this issue very
> closely, and came up with its best suggestions on how the At Large
> Directors should be elected; those recommendations are now being evaluated
> to see how they can be implemented, and more action will take place before
> and at Santiago. Thus, if you are serious about this issue, it is
> irresponsible to assert that it is not being given both the attention and
> the care that it obviously deserves.
You say that the General Membership is being studied with all deliberate
speed.
Yet, it is odd that, by contrast, the board is racing forward, creating
structures like the DNSO, that are already making permanent decisions
(such as adoption of WIPO), before there is even a single person on the
board who has been elected by an outsider.
The net effect is, of course, that by the time there is a General
Membership, the DNSO will have made most of the significant and
substantive choices.
Thus the elective board (which, by the way, will be but a minority even
were they to act in unity) will have no way to act except to overturn the
DNSO's choices.
And as you well know the language of the ICANN by-laws prohibits the board
from initiating action to overturn a DNSO initiative already adopted by a
previous board.
Those of us who see the dissonance of ICANN's
go-slow-with-membership/go-fast-with-DNSO approach are not "arrogant
juveniles" (as one prominent ICANN board member/executive described us).
Rather we see something that amounts to a warping of democratic processes.
> It is my impression that the Board is
> willing to accept criticism for a lot of things, and recognizes that in
> this environment it is inevitable and unavoidable, but it does not want to
> be remembered as the Board that, in response to that criticism, took
> actions that, instead of contributing to progress, in fact were fatal to
> the effort.
May I suggest that your fear is not necessary.
This board has already established its place in the memory of man as "the
board that never held an open meeting".
You can protest all you want that the board is doing wonderful and great
things. Perhaps it is. But nobody on the outside knows.
All we see are the results.
And those results very clearly reject the meaningful participation of
non-commercial and individual interests in the governance of the Internet.
There is no operational General Membership.
There is not a single way for a non-commercial interest or individual to
have any way in any SO of doing anything more than make comments.
And the ICANN history, as you well know, is full of -comment mailing lists
which are really nothing more than waste-baskets being used as placebos
and pacifiers while the real decisions are made in private, in the dark,
with no real records, and unknown quid-pro-quos.
If there is any blame for ICANN's current position it is not on those of
us who have reservations.
Rather, I would suggest that the responsibility for ICANN's precarious
position are those who reject criticism and who who reject any response to
criticism as not "contributing to progress"
> The mechanics of the membership issue are probably the
> toughest problem the Board has faced, and nonetheless, it is highly likely
> there will be a membership process in place less than nine months after the
> Board began work.
That would mean in about ten days from now.
But once more you indicate a flawed process.
The General Membership committee made its report. And the next thing you
expect to happen is a fully formed General Membership structure emerging
from the Board, like Venus emerging fully grown from the sea shell.
What ever happened to well-accepted procedures, like having the board post
notice of its proposed actions during a notice-and-comment period.
What ever happened to exposure of the decision making process used by the
board so that those who comment can constructively address the defects
perceived by the board or respond to mis-understandings that the board may
have?
> It seems to me, given the other organizational midwiving
> it had to do (the SOs)
"midwiving"? May I suggest that ICANN is acting more like father, mother,
grandparents, and midwife.
The constituency structure was an contested idea. Yet, the board took
those disputed notions, closeted itself in Singapore, and came forth, like
Moses on the Mount, proclaiming, by fiat, a final design that was nothing
less than the board's own notion of constituencies. And the board
entombed this into the ICANN bylaws without benefit of meaningful minutes,
without public notice of the proposed action, and without public comment.
The notion that the DNSO would "self-organize" was changed by the board
into "self-organize, but we reserve the right to rework the whole thing".
And I may say, that the board undertook to "re-organize" the DNSO into its
own image with a speed unheard of among those who care about other
matters, such as the General Membership.
> 2. It seemed to me that a little sarcasm was an appropriate response
A little sarcasm is OK. Humor is OK.
Besmirching those who may have objections as a "religious or just
mischeivous) minority" is not funny.
Repeatedly calling those who have legitimate concerns "arrogant juveniles"
is neither sarcasm nor humor.
We have a very serious issue here -- the fact that the first experiement
in Internet Governance is moving on a path that is increasingly looking
like it is leading to something that looks more like Bismarck's Germany
than the fair democracy envisioned by the White Paper.
--karl--
