[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Richard Hill]

Dear Alejandro,

Please see embedded comments below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
>Sent: vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 20:50
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: Vint Cerf; Chapter Delegates
>Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship
>Transition Coordination Group
>
>Richard,
>
>we have gone through this exact same discussion several times over the years. It was thought
> at those many times that you were following ICANN issues closely. 

Indeed I have been following these issues closely ever since the IAHC which, as you know, preceded ICANN.

>The design constraints have not changed 

I agree.  If you go back to the 1998 NTIA Policy Statement (the White Paper) that resulted in the creation of ICANN, you will see that it says under Revised Policy Statement/Principles for a New System/4. Representation:

"The new corporation should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users. Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure international participation in decision making."

The White Paper doesn't go into much detail regarding how to do this, but the earlier version, the Green Paper, was more specific.  As the White Paper says under Background/1. Principles for a New System/5. Structure of the New Corporation:

"The Green Paper proposed a 15-member Board, consisting of three representatives of regional number registries, two members designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), two members representing domain name registries and domain name registrars, seven members representing Internet users, and the Chief Executive Officer of the new corporation.

... 

"The Green Paper attempted to describe a manageably sized Board of Directors that reflected the diversity of the Internet. It is probably impossible to allocate Board seats in a way that satisfies all parties concerned. On balance, we believe the concerns raised about the representation of specific groups are best addressed by a thoughtful allocation of the "user" seats as determined by the organizers of the new corporation and its Board of Directors, as discussed below.
 

"The Green Paper identified several international membership associations and organizations to designate Board members such as APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, and the Internet Architecture Board. We continue to believe that as use of the Internet expands outside the United States, it is increasingly likely that a properly open and transparent DNS management entity will have board members from around the world. Although we do not set any mandatory minimums for global representation, this policy statement is designed to identify global representativeness as an important priority."


>so it is unlikely that a new result will emerge.

The cited White Paper says under Background/1. Principles for a New System/4. Creation of the New Corporation and Management of the DNS:

"Under the Green Paper proposal, the U.S. Government would continue to participate in policy oversight until such time as the new corporation was established and stable, phasing out as soon as possible, but in no event later than September 30, 2000.

...

"The U.S. Government would prefer that this transition be complete before the year 2000. To the extent that the new corporation is established and operationally stable, September 30, 2000 is intended to be, and remains, an "outside" date".

That "outside" date was never met for a number of reasons, including doubts about the appropriateness of ICANN's accountability structure.

I thought at the time that the decision not to have members of ICANN, and the subsequent decision to reduce the number of At Large directors were mistakes.  And I think that time has confirmed that that was a mistake.

It is never too late to rectify a mistake.

We can, and should, learn from experience. 


>The "poll tax" factor appears when you remember that that you are talking about the
> representation of all stakeholders. 

As already stated, I think that finding some way to allow all Internet users (or even all the world's people) to participate directly would be great, but I don't see how to do that.

So instead I propose giving the ultimate authority to registrants. Whether or not they represent all stakeholders sufficiently well can and should be debated.  

But there is no "tax".  Registrants pay fees for their domain names.  Those fees go to registrars who in turn pay fees to registries and to ICANN. Registries in turn pay fees to ICANN.  So registrants already pay.  If you allow them to vote for the Board, you are giving them something extra in exchange for the fees they already pay. 

>Domain name registrants are a subset among users and their participation is already
> funnelled through the GNSO, ccNSO, etc. 

True.  But direct election of the Board is a rather different mechanism.

>To become a registrant in most cases you have to pay so that makes the "poll tax" analogy
> which was utterly strongly resisted. 

As noted above, they already pay.  How is giving them extra power/rights a "tax"?

>The double vote factor counts a lot too. 

If that were considered to be a real issue, solutions could be found to overcome it.

>Plus, registrants, as others have already said, are not only individuals.

Sure.  Nor are the consituents of the GNSO, ccNSO, etc.  So what?

> Vint also has correctly underlined the difficulty of defining the electorate,

My proposal is all domain name registrants who choose to participate in the elections.

> leave alone the identification, authentication and running the election. 

I think that ICANN's technical skills and budgest are adequate to the task.

>Evan's description of the history both trivializes and omits a ton of key factors.
>
>If you find a working group within our subset (ISOC chapters) or more broadly I will be
> happy to discuss when they roll their sleeves and get to work seriously; 

Indeed, more work would be required to refine the proposal.

>I'm not saying this absolutely can't be solved but remind you that there was a very strong
> process to think it through at the time. 

Yes, as as noted above, I think the wrong decision was made and I think that we now have a chance to rectify that.

>Otherwise please read the record and start with something new. 
>
>Yours,
>
>Alejandro Pisanty

SNIP