Comment

[Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Board Members -

I urge you to put these proposed changes on hold while you reconsider 
the changing context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. 
government, other governments, and other interested parties.
At best, these proposals are incrementally better than existing 
provisions of the bylaws related to accountability.  The problem is 
not that they make the present unsatisfactory situation worse, but 
that they do not make it sufficiently better to attract support from 
your major constituents.
During 1999-2001, the Initial Board and I and staff legal counsel 
wrestled at great length with the accountability issue. Without going 
into details that are reflected in Board minutes and resolutions of 
that period, let me say that the fundamental problem was the 
disconnect between American (and other governmental) preferences for 
electoral democracy, and the practical difficulties of implementing 
any legitimate form of elected representation for ICANN in 
cyberspace.  Our one effort to do so, the at large election of 2000, 
decisively demonstrated the ability of governments and large 
organizations to capture an electronic election for the ICANN Board.
Subsequently, several generations of the Board have attempted to 
erect an accountability fabric that would satisfy your critics.  This 
has not worked, and I doubt that the latest effort will either. 
"Accountability" is a bigger issue for ICANN with the U.S. government 
and with other constituencies now than it was five or ten years ago.
It has been clear for some time that the best long term solution is 
for there to be a treaty relationship created to deal with Internet 
governance in the broad sense, of which ICANN would be a part. 
Treaties have been the mechanism for dealing with difficult issues of 
international relations for centuries, and a suitable arrangement can 
be found if approached with intelligence, commitment and good will.
However, it is obvious that no set of the major players is prepared 
to undertake the design of an
Internet Governance treaty at this time.

If the status quo is untenable, and a long term solution is not 
available, what options does the Board have?
For the last ten years, the U.S. Government has provided 
accountability for ICANN through the oversight provided by its 
contracts with you.  No one is terribly satisfied with that 
arrangement, particularly since NTIA has reneged so many times on its 
promise to terminate those ties. However, as the recent U.S. 
Congressional hearing demonstrated, a continuation of USG oversight 
is viewed as the minimum necessary to satisfy demands for 
accountability.
It is in the Board's interest, on behalf of the entire ICANN 
community, to negotiate a new oversight arrangement that includes 
more than the U.S. Government.  How much broader than one country the 
arrangement needs to be is a matter for your CEO and other advisors 
to recommend.  I believe that your energies would be much better 
directed to this effort than to a Bylaw revision process that many 
regard as irrelevant to the main issues associated with 
accountability.
With best regards,

- Mike Roberts
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.