[ALSC-Forum] Comments on "The Idea of ICANN"

[Bruce Young]

Comments on "The Idea of ICANN," by David R. Johnson and Susan P. Crawford  
<http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/the_idea_of_icann.htm>

This documents says a lot of good things.  But it clearly assumes the At
Large community should have a subservient role in ICANN.   

"It follows that the core of the DNSO is the General Assembly, an inherently
open body, not the Names Council (which should act only as a steering
committee and be selected by some means that fairly canvas the views of the
entire GA)."

OK.  But why should only the views of the DNSO GA have sway here?  Suppose
I, or others whose lives and livelihoods are affected by such decisions have
something meaningful to say?  Why must we work for an Internet industry
before we have a voice?

"It follows that the At Large membership that elects some of the Board . . .
."  

Why cannot *all* board members be elected at large?  If, as they go on to
say, " . . . overlapping memberships in these various groups (GA, Individual
Domain Name Holder Constituency, At Large Membership) is not troubling,
because ICANN should encourage the self-formation of any group to which the
consensus question can usefully be asked," which I agree is true, then every
interest can express their will through open elections.  Why should Industry
be given special dispensation to elect or appoint board members?  Is their
need to protect their profits greater than my need to ensure my children and
grandchildren inherit a free, unfettered Internet?  I think not!

"It follows that the At Large membership structure cannot be based on the
theory of representative (or direct) democracy. The principle of
one-person-one vote provides a basis for delegating a people's sovereignty
to a government. It does not provide legitimacy for a system that seeks
voluntary compliance with policies that have the support or acquiescence of
all groups particularly impacted by those policies."  

Really?  If so, who decides which constituency has primacy?  I don't buy it.
Again, this presupposes that corporate interests should be able to trump
private interests.  I don't buy it.  For this to work ALL constituencies
have to have an equal voice.

"It follows that selection of the Board should stress diversity of outlook
so the Board can serve as a device for detecting and unmasking bogus claims
that consensus exists (when relevant impacted groups have not been
adequately consulted and would otherwise not be heard)."

Agreed.  Then why, earlier in the document, do you imply that only "some" of
the directors should be elected at large?  How do directors answerable only
to vested corporate interests ensure that diverse views are included?  

"It follows that there should be many more DNSO constituencies and working
groups and task forces discussing various issues."

Again why should the conversation be limited to any Internet entities.  

"Allow any group that has a clear, substantial, and continuing involvement
with domain name policy (or other matters within ICANN's mandate) to elect
at least one member to the ICANN Board. Eliminate any other pre-established
entitlement of any group to any particular number of seats on the ICANN
Board. Allow the Board to make some additional appointments to fill obvious
holes of expertise or outreach capability. Require all groups that elect
ICANN Board members to pay fees approved by those who collectively pay
two-thirds of the amounts levied on any particular group."

Huh?  If I read this right, only those who can pay would deserve board
representation.  And this is a good idea why?



Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html