[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

At 8:15 PM +0200 10/6/02, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
>Reading trough the final implementation report and recomendations
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc
>t02.htm I have the following comments:
>
>>B. The structure of ICANN
>>(...)
>>It is now clear that a purely private-sector body cannot effectively carry
>out the ICANN mission.
>
>I would be curious to see the reasoning behind this. My personal opinion
>from the IP addressing area is that a purely private-sector body has indeed
>carried out its mission without government intervention.

Hans Petter,

I think that this just states what should be obvious - that the 
structure of ICANN should include a role for governments, because it 
is unrealistic to expect that governments will agree to have no say 
in any of the areas of ICANN's mission (the ccTLDs are an example). 
That's not the same thing as "government intervention"; in my mind, 
at least, it means something like "public/private partnership." One 
of the objectives of the reform process is to negotiate the terms of 
such a partnership so as to keep ICANN as close to the private-sector 
ideal as possible.

Stuart's original "Case for Reform" made the same point at greater 
length: "I have come to the conclusion that the original concept of a 
purely private sector body, based on consensus and consent, has been 
shown to be impractical. The fact that many of those critical to 
global coordination are still not willing to participate fully and 
effectively in the ICANN process is strong evidence of this fact. But 
I also am convinced that, for a resource as changeable and dynamic as 
the Internet, a traditional governmental approach as an alternative 
to ICANN remains a bad idea. The Internet needs effective, 
lightweight, and sensible global coordination in a few limited areas, 
allowing ample room for the innovation and change that makes this 
unique resource so useful and valuable."

>I am not shure government intervention would improve the processes.
>
>With that said, I still belive in transparency and bottom up processes with
>open participation, so individuals with the appropriate expertice from
>relevant government organisations should be welcomed in the process just as
>any other participants.

I agree.

>
>>C. ICANN process
>
>As a general comment I am fairly confused on wether the processes of the two
>domain supporting organisations are part of ICANN and ICANNs processes or
>wether they are separate entities with their own responsibility for their
>processes.

The three SOs are part of ICANN; the new bylaws specify some of their 
processes, and leave some of them up to the Council of each SO 
(macro- vs. micro-management).

>  >E. Participation by Critical Entities
>
>I am curious to know what critical entities are refered to as not currently
>participating.
>
>>B. Board of directors
>I note that a Director may no longer be removed by the supporting
>organisation appointing that director.

I hadn't noticed that, but you're right - this is a difference 
between the old bylaws and the new bylaws. I don't know the reason 
for the change, but will find out.

>  >C. Supporting organisations
>I note that with the new structure the ICANN board representatives from the
>NAMES side now are 2+2 board members while the addressing side appoints 2
>members.

Yes; separating the ccTLDs from the other TLDs creates two "names" 
SOs, each of which elects 2 directors.

>regarding funds: I support the approach taken by the RIRs to fund the ASO
>secretariat bottom up (directly by the RIRs) rather than top down (ie first
>paying money to ICANN to fund the secretariat).

The ERC's final report notes that the RIRs prefer this approach to 
funding the ASO secretariat, and I see no reason not to do it this 
way; certainly there is nothing in the report or the new bylaws that 
would prevent it.

- Lyman