Comments on President's Strategic Planning Committee Report

[George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to provide my comments on the results of the President's 
Strategy Committee report on ICANN and Transition.
My perspective is more that of an outsider than an insider.  Although 
I've been a relatively intense observer of ICANN during the last four 
years as a result of my being on the ICANN Nominating Committee.  I 
have not otherwise been actively involved in the operational or the 
policy aspects of the organization.  I have, however, been involved 
in the spread of ICT and networking throughout the developing world 
during the last 35 years, and I am thoroughly involved in the 
Internet Governance Forum and related activities.
So by making these comments, I do not claim to represent anyone but myself.

In brief, while I subscribe the the ultimate goals of the PSC report, 
I do not agree that prompt or rapid action is either necessary or 
necessarily desirable, and I would argue for a slower and more 
conservative approach.  I would rather see a short term  continuation 
of a looser JPA, recognizing the progress that has been made, 
lightening ICANN's reporting requirements, with increased promise of 
evolution into an independent body when external conditions are more 
likely to assure such a successful transition.

In support of this position, I would like to make several points:


1. Sufficient safeguards against capture may not now exist, and ICANN 
is vulnerable.
Internet Governance is a hot topic.  We have now experienced two 
major meetings during the World Summit on the Information Society, 
leading to the creation of the Internet Governance Forum, which as 
met twice and has three more meetings to go, at least in its first 
incarnation.  There is significant pressure to extend the life of the 
IGF, along with pressure to have it evolve into either a permanent UN 
"bureau" as well as become more of a decision making body.  whether 
these efforts will succeed is anyone's guess right now, but the 
discussion is certain to take place.
In addition, there are pressures from international organizations. 
As I understand it, a new study group is being proposed with respect 
to Internet governance within the ITU.  There is considerable support 
for forcing IPv^ addresses to be country specific.  And, while the 
voices of some countries with regard to Internet capture have been 
more muted recently, I have only observed silence, not an acceptance 
of the status quo.  Enhanced cooperation has by and large been 
superficial, and appropriately so, given the conceptual differences 
that exist between the positions of the various parties in the 
discussion.
One negative factor is likely to be gone by the end of the current 
JPA, and that is the current distrustful relationship between the 
United States and many other countries.  My sense is that a 
significant amount of the distrust of the current relationship 
between the US government and ICANN is a reflection of the current 
administration's multi-dimensional disregard for the opinions of 
other countries.  That, I hope will fade  -  but slowly  -- with a 
new administration in Washington.
If ICANN achieves independence prematurely, and is captured by 
external forces, it will not be because the President's Strategy 
Committee has not attempted to be thoughtful or thorough in their 
study.  Rather, it will be because of unintended consequences of 
either the method of departure, or changes in the external 
environment, or both.  We are working in uncharted territory: a 
rapidly growing and changing technology, a nascent industry, a new 
rapidly evolving and untested muti-stakeholder environment, a serious 
challenge to both the established order of international 
organizations and the established national political order.
Such a situation is not necessarily stable, and the activities 
mentioned above are reacting to these seismic faults.  Under such 
conditions, it is possible that the consequences of early 
independence, neither intended nor foreseen, may result in elements 
of capture that would be quite negative.  Just because we cannot 
foresee any such consequences does not not mean that they are not 
there.  It is better to be slow and cautious than to be sorry.

2. Effective multi-stakeholder community representation has not been 
realized, and ICANN is vulnerable.
When we discuss the Internet, we often use the word "community" to 
refer to a group of people who are somehow associated with or 
affected by the Internet.  It's a slippery word, sometimes the 
"Internet community" means the technical community surrounding the 
Internet, but other times it refers to different  communities, such 
as the community of domain name holders, the community of Internet 
users, and even the community of potential Internet users, all 6.5 
billion of us.  So when we refer to the Internet community is some 
general way, there is almost certain to be room for different 
interpretations and disputes regarding the correctness of what is 
stated.
Overlaying the concept of community, whether it's the Internet of the 
ICANN community however defined) over ICANN's current constituencies 
as well as over stakeholder groups  --  again, however or by whomever 
defined  --  creates imprecise discussion.  However, it is clear that 
some parts of the community, or stakeholders if you prefer, are well 
represented.  The contracted parties, registrars and registries, are 
well represented, as are peripheral industries, such as intellectual 
property law.  Business in the IT sector is represented, but the 
business sector as a user of ICT and the Internet is not.
The worst issue with respect to representation is in the 
not-for-profit sector and the individual domain holder or user 
population.   Perhaps it was a mistake for the US Government in 1998 
to insist upon such representation; if ICANN had been limited to 
being essentially an industry association employing soft 
self-regulation as a tool for growth, we might have been better off., 
But that was not the case, and since then, ICANN has struggled, 
without substantial success, with the issue of individual 
representation,
The NCUC (non-commercial user constituency), as it exists today, is 
an emasculated body without prestige, power, or broad influence.  A 
comparison of the membership of the body with a list of important 
not-for-profit organizations in the world today shows almost zero 
overlap.  Such representation cannot be taken seriously.  Similarly, 
the ALAC (A-large Advisory Committee) is an experiment in progress, 
and may fare better, but still cannot claim to represent more than a 
very tiny fraction of people  --  not necessarily domain name holders 
--  who know of the Internet and no doubt use it.
I think that ICANN is very vulnerable on these two points. 
Governments can reasonably make the claim that they are the real 
organizations that represent their inhabitants, inclusively, and that 
ICANN does not now and will not be able in the future to provide 
effectively such representation.  Therefore governments can claim 
that they should have a major say, on behalf of their inhabitants, 
how ICANN's functions, as well as Internet governance functions 
should be managed, and they are not going to mean only enlarging the 
scope of the GAC.  I think that this is a conundrum for ICANN that 
will be very difficult to resolve satisfactorily.
Continuing lack of resolution and debate about individual 
representation could turn into an effective wedge for use by 
international organizations, with the help of some governments, to 
capture essential functions of ICANN.  While this may not happen, it 
is a possibility.  ICANN needs to resolve the dilemma of 
representation in a manner that is more secure from challenge.  This 
will take time as well as effort.  When ICANN can generally be viewed 
as "serving the public interest," and when it has a track record of 
doing so and gaining general acceptance of doing so. then it will be 
time to consider full independence.  That is not the case now.

I am a United States citizen.  My position might appear slightly 
chauvinistic or protective, given that I argue for not cutting 
ICANN's ties to the United States government just yet.
I'd like to counteract any such conclusion.  My citizenship is to a 
large extent an accident of history, as are the ties between ICANN 
and the US government.  I would be equally happy if ICANN's ties were 
with other governments I consider mature and democratic, such as 
Canada, Finland, or Switzerland.  ICANN still needs a  place in which 
to grow up and become stronger and more well established in a number 
of dimensions, and while there are a number of such possibilities, 
history has dictated the situation that we have today.

My remarks address only a subset of the issues raised by the PSC, and 
reading them over, they seem woefully incomplete compared with the 
comprehensive nature of their report.  However, I have chosen to 
concentrate on the capture issue because it is the major threat to 
ICANN's success and to the success of the Internet as I believe we 
want it to evolve.  Others are more competent to comment upon other 
issues raised by the PSC report.  I trust that they will do so, and I 
look forward to reading their remarks.

George Sadowsky

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky@xxxxxxxxx
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central: +1.202.370.7734
SKYPE: sadowsky