Commets of ISOC.Ar to the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
In response to the invitation to submit ideas on a model of organization
for ICANN, as formulated by Dr.Stuart Lynn, in the document titled "ICANN
- the case for reform", which was made public on February 24th,
2002, we would like to share some reflections on the process heretofore
undertaken by ICANN, and how to best prepare in order to successfully
overcome the challenges of the future.
From isoc.ar, Internet Society Argentina Chapter, we wish to recognize
the contribution made by Dr.Lynn in his document, and to support his
invitation to the Internet community to reflect upon and debate the
ideas that are herein presented. We also consider the document prepared
by ICANN staff - "Towards a Statement on the ICANN Mission"
to be timely.
Background
ICANN was born due to a consultation process which was worldwide, originated
by the "White Paper" and then articulated by means of what
was called the IFWP. This succession of meetings in different regions
plus the multiple discussion lists and teleconferences, provided suggestions
and recommendations, that were selectively incorporated by means of
a non-binding procedure by those who at that time led the process. Similarly,
and acting in a "Nominating Committee" mode, without making
their selection criteria known to the public, the first BoT was established,
which did not respect the geographic diversity outlined in the Bylaws,
since only 3 of the 5 regions contributed members to this Board.
Later, members of the BoT were added through election proceedings. These
methods can be perfected, particularly the At Large, which accumulates
a considerable amount of time and dedication as from the original MAC
up to the current ALSC. The performance of chosen Directors on the Board,
is observed by the voters, who can apply their votes accordingly every
year. We consider this to be a clear achievement of bottom-up actions
over the time lapsed.
Considerations
ICANN in performing has achieved a series of successes which are correctly
underlined by Dr.Lynn in his submission, and is now faced with number
of challenges to be overcome.
At this time, 4 Board members from the initial selection continue in
office, which means that the proposed model has not yet completed it's
first cycle of existence. On the other hand, the SO appear as consulting
bodies, who produce non-binding recommendations, at least this is clear
with the DNSO. The "bottom-up" qualification is more a formulation
than a daily practice.
Governments, aside from participating in the GAC, also do so very actively
in the ICANN process, by means of their Administrative bodies related
to the Internet, and thus are part of Working Groups, Advisory Committees,
Task Forces, etc.
ICANN coordinates actions involving Internet resources, such as Protocols,
Numbers and Domain Names. All these elements mobilize an industry which
generates hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The question arises:
why is it so difficult to establish that the stakeholders involved in
these proceedings should generate the necessary funds in order to enable
ICANN to function efficiently?
We share Dr.Lynn's views on the work overload that the ICANN staff endures,
and consider that, aside from budget shortcomings, redesigning current
procedures should enable a better level of work completion. With regards
to this, the role of the current SOs, or those to be created if this
were so decided, should have a binding contribution coordinated with
Board members and Staff support, and this is not a performance model
applied currently.
We do not beleive that resorting to Administrations and Organizations
with established bureaucracies, and without the adequate perception
of the complex nature of the Internet, would supply ICANN with the necessary
agility that the dynamics of the Internet require. Following upon this
the number of Board members, considering the performance model we have
mentioned, should not be reduced.
A clear practice of binding bottom-up decisions, will assuredly awaken
the interest of stakeholders who so far have not become part of the
ICANN process, perhaps due to the lack of stimulus of genuine participation,
which goes beyond a simple advisory process which does not bind the
advice-receiving body.
Conclusions
In summary, ICANN can strengthen it's performance and adequately increase
it's participation basis, by deepening policies and procedures which
were not fulfilled in the initial stage, specially that of a real binding
bottom-up and not merely advisory procedure, with a Board that is elected
by members of the community in different organizations, generating funding
from the industry (IP adresses, gTLDs, ccTLDs), respecting geographic
diversity, adjusting internal procedures and focusing on it's core mission.
We beleive these courses of action will be successful in overcoming
the challenges facing ICANN.
Regards
Edmundo Valenti
President
ISOC.Ar Internet Society Argentina Chapter
www.isoc.org.ar
Other related documents
