At 12:28 PM 7/10/99 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>Jon,
>
>[...]
>
>The operative standard is "...abide by rules and
>decision-making processes that are sound, transparent,
>protect against capture by a self-interested party."
>Just about everything concerning ICANN, GAC,
>and the DNSO are patently manifestations of capture
>by one self-interested party. It is the NewCo that
>wasn't supposed to happen.
>
>Network Solutions and its shareholders are the largest
>stakeholders in the DNS business. Is it not reasonable and
>equitable for them to be able to select 14% of the seats
>on a related policy council? It's certainly far from
>"capture."
This is a good question! At some point I suppose you'd agree that some
number is too much, no matter how large a stakeholder we were talking
about. In your view should it just be made simpler and NSI could have one
rep with three votes as against everyone else's one vote?
If you see ICANN as a sort of trade association--a chance for
otherwise-competing industry stakeholders to get under one roof and get
standards settled, for example--then I'd expect NSI would be a large
player. If instead you see ICANN as having a public trust function for the
good of the Internet at large, the notion is a little different. Imagine
if the FCC commissioners were picked as "one by AT&T, one by NBC, one by
Rupert Murdoch," etc. It's not right, even though each of those entities
are large stakeholders with a lot to gain or lose by what the FCC
decides. The whole constituency approach, where constituencies funnel into
a names council in equal measure, seems quite odd to me, especially since
the constituencies overlap so much. It's particularly bad when there's no
vehicle for individual participation, either through a recognized IDNO or
through the non-commercial constituency.
Sticking with "gTLD registries" as the constituency, though, do you think
its membership should include representatives from .mil, .gov, .arpa, and .int?
>Should the gTLD-MoU faction by contrast - which has
>a very small stake - enjoy more than 50% of the seats,
>the policy-making chair, the agenda making role, and
>the predominant appointments to groups developing
>policies? Is that capture?
The gTLD-MoU folk are a coalition of sorts rather than a single
corporation. But I do believe the council would be best served by having a
variety of people and interests represented there. If it's not capture it
can sure appear that way, which is almost as bad. ...JZ
>--tony
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
