ICANN Reform - a proposal
Dear All, on 24 February 2002 the President and CEO of ICANN, Stuart Lynn, published a discussion document that -1- analyses the current problems and shortcomings of ICANN, and -2- proposes a new structure for a reformed ICANN. This document can be found at http://www.icann.org/accra/reform-topic.htm A first reaction by the RIPE NCC has been published on 1 March 2002, and can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/icann-reform.html Furthermore, some (personal) opinions from the IETF Chair, Harald Alvestrand, can be found at http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html All this is of the utmost importance to both RIPE and the RIPE NCC. I would therefore strongly encourage the RIPE community to read these documents very carefully, and start a discussion on their implications. It is clear that we are at a crossroads as far as ICANN is concerned, and that we might have a last opportunity to do it right this time. The status of the proposal is as follows: - the proposal was presented to the ICANN Board on 23 February - the Board discussed it on 23-24 February - the board decided to publish the document and ask for input from all affected parties - the board will at some time in the (near) future take a decission on restructuring ICANN. This will not happen at the forthcoming Board meeting in Accra I suggest to use this list <ripe-list@ripe.net> for further discussions. I will certainly use this list to let my own views be known. Best regards, Rob Blokzijl RIPE Chairman ICANN Director
Personal point-of-view: Before discussing structural reform, ICANN needs to clearly define its activities and the services it provides. Any further steps such as changing ICANN's structure have to follow from a clear understanding of services and activities. Since ICANN needs to (re)-establish the confidence of the communities it is serving, ICANN would be well advised to restrict its activities to the absolute minimum. In my view Harald Alvestrand's thoughts are a good starting-point for defining the necessary activities of ICANN. Once ICANN has established the confidence of the communities, it may consider starting less essential activities. A detailed discussion of Stuart's proposal does not make sense to me before ICANN's activities are clearly delimited. Constantly trying to take the second step before the first will result in constant stumbling with a fall at the end. Daniel
Daniel, You are right. However, is this important? Is there still a way that your voice will be listened? I am not sure, and this is what makes me worried. Once upon a time there were a young officer who dissolved the Convent. Later this young officer become a Cezar. He was listening only to those we wanted to listen. "On engage, puis on vois" - said Napoleon. The question here, how to avoid a new Napoleon. BTW, not everything was bad that Napoleon introduced. One good example is the metric system. This was a basic reform, and Napoleon was able to push it through. Do we need a Napoleon now? I do not think so, however, just telling this is far not enough. We should have a real reform proposal. Or very clear arguments why there is no need for reforms. What Stuart says is too far away what I would like to see. Alvestrand is much closer. In my view Stuart is similar to Napoleon. I fully aggree with Harald Alvestrand' analyse as far as the tasks of ICANN concerned. However, only partialy with the triumvirate concept. The identification of the three areas of control (technical, social, economical) is OK for me. However, just one representatives for each area is far not enough. Representantatives of each area should have overlapping terms of services. And each Areas should have three representantatives. This is a minimum requirements and might be the maximum as well, if we woul like to keep the governing body small. The bottom up mechanism applied today for selection of some representatives of ICANN is not bad, anyhow. One other issue: I do not understand why would be appropiate to call the representatives of the "social area" as governement officials. I have seen an Ambassador just happen to be the brother-in-low of the new Prime Minister. If you guess the county, you might have more than one hit. It would be much better if the representatives of social area would be those already worked in the user oriented working group ot the IETF, TERENA, etc. Some bottom up mechanism should be applied here as well. Uhh, for the time being these were my - strictly personal - comments, apologies for my English. I do think there is a real danger, we should at least tell is openly!! Regards, Geza Turchanyi On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Personal point-of-view:
Before discussing structural reform, ICANN needs to clearly define its activities and the services it provides. Any further steps such as changing ICANN's structure have to follow from a clear understanding of services and activities.
Since ICANN needs to (re)-establish the confidence of the communities it is serving, ICANN would be well advised to restrict its activities to the absolute minimum. In my view Harald Alvestrand's thoughts are a good starting-point for defining the necessary activities of ICANN. Once ICANN has established the confidence of the communities, it may consider starting less essential activities.
A detailed discussion of Stuart's proposal does not make sense to me before ICANN's activities are clearly delimited. Constantly trying to take the second step before the first will result in constant stumbling with a fall at the end.
Daniel
At 18:02 11/03/2002, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
You are right. However, is this important?
Yes, I think this is important for the RIPE community.
Is there still a way that your voice will be listened?
Yes I think our voice has an influence on how ICANN will develop. Definitely our voice has an influence how the RIPE NCC will interact with ICANN.
...
I fully aggree with Harald Alvestrand' analyse as far as the tasks of ICANN concerned. However, only partialy with the triumvirate concept. ...
As I said before. The important question now is What should ICANN be doing? And what not? This is the important first step when 're-inventing' ICANN. Once that is clear one can discuss changes to ICANN's structure. It is an old trick to focus the discussion on details of structure while at the same time making a big grab for (additional) mandate. If it works, everyone will have implicitly accepted the mandate while they fight over seats on advisory committees. This should not happen now! Take the first step *before* the second. Daniel
Daniel, I hope you understood that I was deliberately provocative. I do agree that what you says is important for us - I just wanted to highlight that might not be important for the new "reform makers". I would like to hear more voice saying something similar what you said. This is missing, and I do not understand why. ICANN might loose its orientation to the reality and this is very dangerous. If we agree on the tasks of ICANN, this is the first important point. OK, let's listen if other members of the RIPE community support you, fully or partially, or have different opinions. HI FOLKS THERE, PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS, OTHERWISE SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT RIPE IS DEAD! There is now way to build bottom up consensus if there are no voices to listen!! If we were in a room, listen to the breathing would be enough, but now it is not! You are right, that discussion of the structure of the future ICANN might be too early at the beginning, however, this should be the important second step, and for people, how think similarly about the real role of ICANN as you think, there is no real matter for discussion just the "organisation". Best, Geza
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
ICANN might loose its orientation to the reality and this is very dangerous.
There is little evidence suggesting that ICANN has ever had much connection to the real world. What's important for RIPE at this time is to apply steady pressure on ICANN, to remind ICANN that the real world exists. If people remain very calm and very skeptical, it is just possible that at some time in the future ICANN might become useful. -- Jim Dixon jdd@dixons.org tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 ---------- THAT'S A CHANGE OF ADDRESS: I'm no longer jdd@vbc.net --------
On 2002-03-13T20:54:14, Jim Dixon <jdd@dixons.org> said:
ICANN might loose its orientation to the reality and this is very dangerous. There is little evidence suggesting that ICANN has ever had much connection to the real world. What's important for RIPE at this time is to apply steady pressure on ICANN, to remind ICANN that the real world exists. If people remain very calm and very skeptical, it is just possible that at some time in the future ICANN might become useful.
What I personally deem to be _the_ most challenging task for RIPE and the other RIRs is to ensure that whatever legal issues with regard to trademarks and whatever ICANN comes up with does NOT impact technical operation of the network. Frankly, I don't care much about the rest as long as I can safely ignore it. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br�e <lmb@suse.de> -- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
Dear colleagues, Rob Blokzijl wrote:
Dear All,
on 24 February 2002 the President and CEO of ICANN, Stuart Lynn, published a discussion document that [...]
the following letter might be interesting to consider as well: http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/020306burns.shtml as - following some of Ray Plzak's (ARIN) comments I got during a yersterday's discussion - this hearing is most likely going to happen according to usual process and behaviour within the US senate what brings USG closer back again. What especially scares me is the sentence "Obviously, more fundamental questions also need to be addressed, such as whether ICANN is even the most appropriate organization to be tasked with such a critical mission, which is central to our national security." Cheers, -C.
Dear all, one should understand the US political system to better place this action in the right perspective: 1. committee hearings take place all the time 2. more then 98% never makes it to legislation 3. this year is an election year. Senaters and Representatives create publicity through committee hearings However, one should follow this closely. The ICANN President (Stuart Lynn) and General Council (Louis Touton) have assured me that is has their full and serious attention. Best regards, Rob On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Rob Blokzijl wrote:
Dear All,
on 24 February 2002 the President and CEO of ICANN, Stuart Lynn, published a discussion document that [...]
the following letter might be interesting to consider as well:
http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/020306burns.shtml
as - following some of Ray Plzak's (ARIN) comments I got during a yersterday's discussion - this hearing is most likely going to happen according to usual process and behaviour within the US senate what brings USG closer back again.
What especially scares me is the sentence "Obviously, more fundamental questions also need to be addressed, such as whether ICANN is even the most appropriate organization to be tasked with such a critical mission, which is central to our national security."
Cheers,
-C.
participants (6)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jim Dixon -
Lars Marowsky-Bree -
Rob Blokzijl -
Turchanyi Geza