Previous Politech message: "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel. -Declan --- To: declanat_private Subject: Michael Geist's column From: "Joe Sims" <jsimsat_private> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400 Of course, Geist has it all wrong. I hope you will consider publishing this response. The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the answer to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does it. Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since he has the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to correct his misunderstanding. Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory body. It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body. It was intended to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to global issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national governments to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not require a new treaty organization. It is true that its original structure called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large membership of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the Internet community at that time. Prof. Geist, having not been part of the discussions with the US Government that produced that construction, is undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that decision, and I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was convinced that such an approach was really workable. The ICANN organizers wanted to insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the time, for reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how to do it later." The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the assistence of Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this position, notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible to make it work. In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision. We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the concepts on which the original construction rested, and we actually know some things that we did not know then. We know that the notion of global on-line elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for ICANN to be on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area. We know that there is no consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest should be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence of those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution. We know that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who insist on direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus. We also know that a purely private organization, without the support and involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able to carry out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission requires the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure providers). ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive power. It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the community voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed. To date, that has not happened. We can argue all we want about why it has not happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold on-line elections. The fact is that the root server operators, the address registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to the ICANN table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less stable, less predictable organization. Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the path to ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the private sector and global governments working together within an ICANN structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective decisions in a timely way. We are clearly on the path to such an ICANN, and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting in Bucharest later this month. The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the failure to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive. Governments are properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly critical to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and because what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable operation of the Internet. This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's directors were elected by the general public. And it is this fact that is driving the process of gaining the proper level of government participation in ICANN, nothing else. This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists on occupying some academic construct of a world. This longing for some utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a body that does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the entire Internet provider and user community. Joe Sims Jones Day Reavis & Pogue 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863 Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747 Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963 ============================== The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ============================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 14 2002 - 09:53:36 PDT