Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

[Esther Dyson]

Sorry for the delayed response.   I have been traveling....

see some comments inline. sorry if this is a little disjointed.

A couple of points:

The ccTLDs *should* be in ICANN's room (as should any other 
TLDs)....because the policies - though limited - need to operate worldwide, 
as the Internet does.  And with luck there will be some more gTLDs that are 
less US-centric.

Nice points about what is political. thanks!

Now look below for a few more comments if you want.

Esther


At 08:38 AM 4/17/2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>Dear Internet @large Members,
>We are closing on serious matters now with the ITU/T letter and Esther 
>Dyson's evaluation.
>BTW, who is the ITU/T Member of the BoD?

There is no specific ITU member of the BOD.


>On 08:49 17/04/02, Esther Dyson said:
>>>Come up with something that most of the parties can agree/compromise on, 
>>>and all of us can live with it.  That structure should meet the existing 
>>>tests of representing a diversity of views and interests, including 
>>>geographic diversity, it should fulfill the various other requirements 
>>>of the MoU, and it should consist of members from the private 
>>>(non-government) sector.
>
>This is probably not acceptable to the Govs as such. The ITU/T proposition 
>therefore seems positive IF  we can design a mechanism which makes sure 
>that the spirit of your request is carved in the building stones to the 
>point that the system falls apart if it is not respected. I think we can 
>do that.

This is not actually true. Many of the governments would be very happy with 
a *working* ICANN - with proper representation/public accountability.


>>>  ICANN should reach out to the ccTLDs not by asking them to sign a 
>>> contract of fealty to ICANN, but rather by asking them to join ICANN in 
>>> order to participate in setting a minimum level of policies that they 
>>> will agree to implement themselves.
>
>Absolutely true.
>
>>>ICANN and its community (mostly) are trying very hard to limit their 
>>>efforts to the *non*-political issues of the Net's technical 
>>>infrastructure. It's inevitable that there is some overlap, but it need 
>>>not be great. The fact that ICANN has very limited powers and is not a 
>>>treaty organization helps to maintain that distinction, because ICANN 
>>>simply has no authority to meddle in/decide the non-technical issues.
>
>I disagree with this. But it depends on what you name political or not 
>political. The Internet is a medium for the people to talk together. Like 
>air. If the air density decreases we do not hear each other well. ICANN's 
>management decreases the air density. Air pressure management is 
>technical; yet people wanting the air pressure to be restored and telling 
>how is political. IMHO the problem is not that much about what is 
>technical or not, but what is in the ICANN's territory. Air pressure in an 
>other room, or light in this room is territory creep.  As you noted above, 
>ICANN's room is not the ccTLD's room. Yet  there are ways to better 
>maintain air density in both rooms together.

Good points!!  But ICANN's rooms *do* include the ccTLDs - if the ccTLDs 
will only join. But ICANN does not need to decide air pressure in the 
rooms; only the terms governing  - say - the air locks between the rooms, 
so that one room's air does not leak into another's.  (to mix metaphors a 
little!)  We need interoperability, but we do not need the *same* terms in 
each TLD.  And FWIW, I'm sure the *g*TLDs would welcome an ICANN that sets 
fewer terms rather than more.


>>>Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed  "mission creep." As 
>>>long as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, that 
>>>mission creep is almost impossible.  But the moment it became part of, 
>>>say, the ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such 
>>>authority/powers and would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid.
>
>True. if it was "part of". Not, if it was hosted by the ITU/T in such a 
>way ITU/T could only help and structurally not interfere. see below. This 
>means the ITU/T *joining* in an ITU/T hosted structure, not controling.

I can't see how this would work, nor would it solve the basic issue of 
getting all the TLDs together to set *only* those policies that actually 
need to be set jointly.


>>>Those conflicts won't go away, and perhaps those issues do belong with 
>>>the ITU.  But ICANN's current formulation will help it to stay clear of them.
>
>I read you. But unfortunately we have to get real. It is either to compose 
>with the ITU/T or to rebuild another ITU/T (what has been partly done with 
>the GAC). Best is to equally join forces with others, so no one can lead.
>
>>>THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP
>
><snip>
>
>I am afraid the harm has been done by the ALSC. The ALSC proposed a 
>centraly structured @large system. And you continue with the 
>icannatlarge.com effort. Unless there is a structural limitation, this 
>will fail for the very reasons that you give against the ITU/T. The Board 
>responded with the local @large communities. This is the only solution.
>
>The Internet is a distributed system. Everything which is not distributed 
>enough will harm it. Either you distribute it or you reduce your claim of 
>representativity. This is what the ALSC did BTW: the considered @large are 
>only the gTLD registrants: that was consistent.

A decentralized At-Large is necessary, but it/they still need to be 
*heard*/attended to by ICANN in some coordinated if not centralized 
way.  Icannatlarge need not be the only ALM organization.

To the extent that AL members want to self-organize rather than rely on 
ICANN, great!  But they need someone to listen to them to be and to feel 
effective.  That now seems to be happening with the board's acceptance of 
the At-Large project... which we should take advantage of...



>>>Therefore:
>>>
>>>1 - Please support the creation of an At-Large Organizing Committee *now*,
>
>amen. But that will become just another committee without real support if 
>you claim to represent everyone.

It does not claim to represent. It should *listen* and pass on what it 
hears to the board.  if the idea below comes to pass, the ALOC should 
communicate with whatever emerges.


>>>2 - Please support the activities of the ALOC as a meaningful step 
>>>towards a useful, constructive At-Large Membership.
>
>amen.
>
>>>The ALOC should foster efforts of AL Members to organize themselves and 
>>>participate in ICANN's decision-making constructively, with a focus not 
>>>just on ICANN's own governance,
>
>This is a "bottom down" approach. This is already a progress.
>What the BoD has called for is a bottom-bottom-up approach.
>
>1. let define what is ICANN territory.
>2. let the appropriate @large local chapters organize and once for all 
>accept that the @large are the people sharing into the gouvernance.
>3. let permit the ICANN Network partners define themselves and organize 
>(ccTLDs, Newnet, Open Roots, etc..)
>4. let use the ITU/T has a "virtual country" where to settle these 
>partners secretariat
>
>The ICANN is not that much making a poor job, it tries to make everyone's 
>job. Before asking the USG to remove its control from the ICANN or to step 
>in, let see what is under real control of the USG and what is delegated to 
>the ICANN. Also let understand who is who in the structures.
>
>1. the Internet systems are not telephone systems. The Internet is not 
>owned by the ICANN, it is co-owned by all the participants. Most are 
>represented - not only appropriately - Telcos, ISPs, Registries and 
>Registrars, but not the Registrants and not the Users. This means that 
>most probably 80% of the hardware, software and brainware investment is 
>not represented. Here is the first problem.
>
>2. the second problem is that these 80% co-owners are like every small 
>shares holder. They want it to work but they do not care about day to day 
>life. Just when they are upset. So we must have them organized, but not by 
>the ICANN: by themselves. Consumer organizations, @large organizations, 
>etc.. And let stop talking about voting representativity, what we need is 
>concern representativity.
>
>3. the third problem is for evertone to understand that one does not 
>control a distributed system. On can only serve and catalyse it. Who wants 
>to control it centraly hurts it and will be circumvented (you do not stop 
>the tide). Who truely wants to control it has to serve it well first.
>
>3. the forth problem is a problem of territory. The ICANN network is NOT 
>the whole world and multi-porject and multi-technology and multi-country 
>and mumti-culture and eternal system. The ICANN manages the Jon Postel 
>sub-network, not the universal network of the universe. This is fact. I 
>have no objection to an ICANN trying to do more, but if we need first to 
>get real.
>
>The ICANN today "controls" : .com, .net, .org (?), .int, .arpa, and the .7 
>others.
>the USG today controls .mil, .edu, .gov, .us
>the ccTLDs are a group of diversified appraoches
>New.net controls the Newnet system
>the Open Roots control the Open Systems
>the ITU/T controls the Telephone and the Data Networks
>the TV and Radio systems are also by their own
>as will be the Wi-Fi
>EDIFACT may have its say and many others like ISSN, ISBN, WTO etc.. etc...
>
>When we accept that we have the solution:
>
>- ICANN + SOs (and ICANN @large as proposed by Esther and implemented by 
>Joop) are OK
>- ccNETs + their local @large communities -  including their Gov the way 
>they want - are OK
>- the New.net and Open Roots communities - including international 
>projects and cultures the way they want - are OK
>- the ITU/T has its own system and brings it on the table
>- the other network naming and numbering systems can join and bring their 
>inputs
>
>Their number, size, diversity, histiory etc will be their common 
>protection against any power creep.
>
>So what I propose is simple;
>
>1. the creation of an open International Concertation Committee on Naming 
>and Numbering Plans by the ITU/T - ywe sections : one on naming 
>(brainware) and one on numbering (hardware).

Call this ICANN....  (but without the ITU/T).

>2. the proposition of an ITU/T sponsored status to all the Naming and 
>Numbering Plan Administrators in order to address the legal aspects.
>3. the ICANN if they want, the ITU/T if they propose, to assume the 
>secretariat of the Committee.
>4. a rotating Chair for the Committee. The one guesting the next bi-yearly 
>meeting.
>
>That way no one can be under the control of anyone.
>Then each proceeds from this, on his the best interest, towards concerted 
>development.
>
>1. the ICANN is certainly a key element to the US commerce, industry, 
>economy and security as co-managing the USG root. I suggest that this is 
>seriously considered and organized to have the ICANN properly funded and 
>supported by the USG. That according to the US culture, laws and usages it 
>is properly rebuild. Most probably in a way respecting a democratic 
>approach. IMHO this should result into an USG root system deployed on the 
>US soil and under Pentagon control in case of war crisis.
>
>2. The ccTLDs are certainly key elements to their country's commerce, 
>industry, economy and  security as co-managing a part of their county's 
>naming space, as will do other national, open or local TLD managers in a 
>near future. I suggest that this is seriously considered by national laws 
>to protect and regulate their activities according to their national 
>cultures, laws and usages. Including the building of a parallel natinal or 
>regional root system under national security and policy control. So no 
>national communication can be controled by foreign operators and national 
>internal relations be destabilized by foreign decisions. Such root systems 
>will concert and should rely on the USG root.
>
>3. The Open Systems (existng or to come) administrators represent the rest 
>of the market.  They are the free entreprises, the NGO, innovate 
>technical; social, cultural experiences. They must be backed by the ICANN 
>and the ccTLDs, fosterng the international and their national communities. 
>Their participation into the ITU/T process makes sure that neither the 
>ICANN nor the ccTLDs will ever fail under the "control" of the ITU/T. As a 
>private company (Tymnet) I have shared into the UN (IBI) and ITU/T (CCITT 
>III/VII) at the time of the monopolies (we interconnected together). I can 
>testifiy that our limitations came far moe from being a part of the US 
>State Department delegation than from the CCITT itself.
>
>My 2 euro cents.
>Jefsey Morfin



Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/