[ALSC-Forum] Calhoun's "Concurrent Majority" [3] -- Should an ICANN Constituency Be Able to Veto ICANN Policy?

[Alphageek]

At Esther Dyson's suggestion, I am forwarding the folowing remarks and some
others to the At Large Forum.

]> -----Original Message-----
]> From: Eric C. Grimm [mailto:ericgrimm@mediaone.net]
]> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 7:18 PM
]> To: gcln@gcln.net
]> Subject: RE: GCLN: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Self-regulation and ICANN (fwd)
]>
]>
]>
]> Esther Dyson says:
]> ]>
]> ]> In theory, ICANN is already perfect!
]>
]> Huh?  Whose theory?
]>
]>
]> ]> Now how do we create something that
]> ]> works in fact.
]> ]>
]>
]> Or at least how do we slow down the inertia of a purportedly
]> "technical standards" organization that is out of control,
]> venturing repeatedly into (and playing favorites with) numerous
]> policy issues before we even have an appropriate and balanced
]> decision-making structure up and running -- e.g.: (1) the
]> "perfect" UDRP (ha!), (2) the "perfect" sweetheart deal with
]> Verisign for continued registry status for certain TLDs, (3) the
]> political position of advocating one "authoritative" root, (4)
]> deliberately creating new TLDs that are calcualted to conflict
]> with alternate roots.  The list can go on and on.  Lets be
]> candid about this . . . ICANN was set up wrong from the get-go,
]> and the mumber of serious mistakes outnumbers the number of
]> successes by several multiples.
]>
]> ]> You are right that it could not exist with general buy-in by a
]> ]> consensus of
]> ]> governments, but that is different from direct involvement.
]> ]>
]>
]> Yes, it is probably impossible to get the governments of the
]> world to agree about Internet issues (even the addressing system).
]>
]> ]> I would say one goal is to keep ICANN small and separate from
]> ]> governments
]> ]> so that it is not able to expand its powers.  Right now it does not
]>
]> That's a pipe dream!  Not expand its powers?  No more apt
]> description of ICANN since it started springs to mind than Mr.
]> Madison's famous description of the U.S. Congress in Federalist
]> 48, "The legislative department is everywhere extending the
]> sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex."
]>
]> In this case, however, I do not perceive the "Framers" of ICANN
]> to have thought much about building institutional checks and
]> balances into ICANN so that such tendencies are at least
]> institutionally combatted as a part of the initial design.
]>
]> Frankly, it is my fervent hope that ICANN, twenty years from
]> now, will be viewed by the constituencies of the Internet much
]> as the American electorate in 1801 viewed the Articles of
]> Confederation.  In thinking about the institutional composition
]> of ICANN, I think that revisiting The Federalist, and subsequent
]> works on American political theory (say, both Mr. Calhoun's
]> Disquisition on Government (1848) and his Discourse on the
]> Constitution and Government of the United States (1850)).
]>
]> ]> (directly) govern the behavior of individuals, only the allocation of
]> ]> resources. It has no statutory authority. Those are subtle
]> but important
]> ]> points.
]> ]>
]>
]> But what powers it does have (and even many it should not) are
]> in fact being exercised in a way that does not really seem to
]> reflect a "consensus" of the Internet community as a whiole, as
]> opposed to the preceived interests of a relatively small but
]> highly interested and energized subpopulation primarily
]> constituted of U.S. commercial interests.
]>
]> ECG