[nc-str] Scribe notes of Stuart's talk in Bangkok
Here are Ben Edelman's notes of Stuart's
presentation at APRICOT
March 6, 2002 - Bangkok, Thailand I. Welcome A. Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra unable to attend B. With extra time, Q&A session. Further Lynn/ICANN Q&A here at 1pm. II. Dr. Stuart Lynn, CEO, ICANN A. Honored to speak at APRICOT. Long personal history with Thailand, including first visit to Asia and guest lecturer. B. Would like to provide a future-looking talk re “IPv28” and “how to assign an IP address to every atom in the universe.” C. But: “One day, I noticed that life at ICANN was getting boring. Going to exotic Marina del Rey… I noticed that Michael Froomkin was not being quoted in the newspapers as often as he might be, so I felt bad about that. I thought, to spice up our lives, why not reform ICANN to make it all a little more exciting? Decided to stir the pot and see what happens.” So, will talk about what’s most on my mind at the moment – a need to reform ICANN. D. The case for reform of ICANN 1. Where we are • ICANN created as a private sector organization for global coordination of certain Internet resources. Alternative to government treaties; thought to be better able to suit the speed of change on the Internet. • ICANN’s work is more than just technical. “Facilitate competition” (requirement of USG MoU) is not just technical, for example, no matter how much some people wish ICANN’s work were only technical. • Conceived as an ambitious experiment – initially, no agreements, no funding. 2. Can mission of ICANN be achieved? • Cannot succeed in its current structure. (Doesn’t mean ICANN has failed.) For example, under current structure, I consider it unlikely that ICANN will receive full direct control over DNS root. (Some people think this is more important, some people less.) 3. There’s no shame or surprise in the need for structural reform. It’s perfectly sensible and typical to need such reform from time to time. 4. Need a new kind of public/private partnership. Purely private structure will fail. Purely governmental structure is undesirable. Need a sensible balance. Need not chose between the two extremes (as has been wrongly suggested from time to time). E. Problems so far: 1. Lack of full participation by key stakeholders. More than just showing up at meetings. Lack of entering into agreements with ICANN. Failure to participate in the funding necessary to make ICANN work. Agreements and funding would legitimize ICANN. 2. Process. Too much emphasis on process, too little on effectiveness of ultimate result. Process is distracting and slows progress. “Government-like” layered hierarchy, but lack of governmental resources or legitimacy. 3. Preoccupation with online global elections is a distraction. Does not help accomplish ICANN’s mission. Understand that some people have strongly-held sincere views to the contrary, but I disagree. 4. Inadequate funding. Unreliable. Mostly from US sources, which makes it harder to think of ICANN as truly global. It may seem appealing to take all funding from the US, but the implication here is serious. 5. Result: ICANN not seen as credible by key stakeholders. Instead, seen as a “debating society.” F. Stakeholders & agreement status 1. Have agreements with gTLDs. 2. Most ccTLDs are “not fully at the table.” Not entirely their fault. Just signed agreement with .JP, and have .AU already. Asia/Pacific region taking the lead here. 3. Address registries – agreement close 4. Root name server operators – no agreements. Not credible to the world’s key stakeholders. 5. Little representation from infrastructure providers or “major users.” 6. Governments G. Funding 1. Budget shortfall each year because not everyone pays 2. So, never hire to authorized levels. As a result, dependence on key staff w/o backup. No reserves. 3. Cannot take on needed work. H. Consequence of continuing on current path 1. Funding inadequate to perform even core functions well 2. Cannot meet conditions for full transfer from USG 3. ICANN becomes weak and vulnerable • Loss of government support. • Drift towards pure government alternative. I. Reform required 1. Need to emphasize accomplishments, credibility, confidence, participation. Not just process. 2. Significant change in mindset required. 3. Should be thoughtful, not paranoid. This won’t happen too quickly; not in Accra, for example. J. Proposal 1. Board of trustees • “Trustees” rather than “directors” because this is to be a position of public trust. • 15 members. Smaller than today. • 5 of the members are ex oficio: CEO, plus chairs of designated committees. • 5 members chosen by nominating committee. (Election is but one way to choose these members. Worked well for us so far. But selection is an alternative. Works fine for plenty of other organizations. Assures that the selected members are the best possible.) • 5 members chosen by governments. They are not to be government employees (at least not in a policy role). • 2 non-voting members: representatives of the IAB and of the GAC. 2. Not a government takeover! 3. Three policy advisory councils: Each led by a steering committee and supplemented with open self-organizing forums. • Generic names • Geographic names • Numbers and addresses • Separation between generic and geographic names is sensible because ICANN doesn’t have an interest in the local aspect of the geographic names. • Forums provide a place for individuals to participate. Also for interested organizations. 4. Advisory committees • GAC • Technical advisory committee (SAC, RSSOC, etc.) 5. Other changes • Suggest that PSO and ASO be brought together. • Structure designed to avoid capture and self-interest. Seek to represent the entire community more clearly than would result from electoral processes. K. Proposal – funding 1. Should be adequate, reliable, and international 2. Related to costs • core/overhead, policymaking, root server • services (new gTLDs, etc.) • reserves 3. Bundled versus unbundled arrangements • For those with agreements in place, no additional charges for services. • For those without, charges for services rendered. 4. Tiered costs according to ability to pay. Size, GNP, or some other measure of size. 5. “Fair share principle for organizations” – full participation requires a fair share of funding • Failure to pay a fair share means you are not a full participant. Probably means you wouldn’t serve on steering committees or otherwise helping to run ICANN. 6. These changes might encourage more signed agreements. L. Openness & transparency 1. Too much focus on what we should not do and how it should be reconsidered. Suggest use of an ombudsman (“impeccable individual”) reporting to the Board (not staff). Should be performed efficiently and effectively. In contrast, current reconsideration system requires “inordinate” staff and Board time. 2. Manager of Public Participation. Existing comment forum is largely a joke. (Apologies to those who do use it sensibly.) We need to do better. 3. Nominating Committee. Those on the committee must have experience, knowledge, leadership, judgment, geographic & functional diversity. Defined turnover periods. 4. Today, openness & transparency means capture by a few individuals. Must improve this. 5. Meetings could be converted (in part) to conferences with learning in addition to decision-making. 6. Goal is meaningful long-term participation by more people. This is more important than occasional elections. M. How the solution solves the problems? 1. Increase participation • Carrot and stick. More opportunities to participate and get involved. Less constraint to slow down progress. Also “stick” approaches including requirement of payment of money to be involved in decision processes. 2. Streamlining process for faster action. 3. Funding through broader participation. N. Where to go from here 1. Welcome ideas & comments 2. Online public comment forum – http://forum.icann.org/reform 3. Email to lynn@icann.org or comment-reform@icann.org 4. Additional Q&A session this afternoon at 1:00pm O. Q&A 1. Q: Prefer term “internationalization” over “globalization.” • A: True. But the “capture” of the term “globalization” (by particular connotations) is unfortunate. 2. Q: Noticed no link between GAC and Board of Trustees. Part of our concern in seeing government selectees on the Board reflects past concern at GAC’s influence of the Board. • A: GAC designee is proposed to serve as a non-voting member ex oficio on the Board of Trustees. 3. Q: Objective of avoiding ICANN being taken over by various organizations or power. How to assure that the US Government does not do so? • A: Would like to move away from today’s situation – where the USG has to approve each change to the root. But countries unwilling to come fully to the table will not have as much influence as those which do. Getting fully involved requires signing agreements with ICANN. 4. Q (Paul Wilson): Addressing community has worked hard on the ICANN process. Feel that’s been productive to date. Hoping for some words of encouragement and support – especially in the context of being asked to start again in reforming our relationship. • A: Addressing community has been exemplary in trying to make this process work. Its challenge is somewhat easier than the names community in that the addressing organizations are existing and somewhat similar. We should take this opportunity to preserve what’s really important (and to improve anything that we can improve). |