CircleID

With one important exception, this and the earlier interviews with Milton show a real understanding of some of the dynamics underlying all the various conflicts that seem to be constantly swirling around the DNS (and more broadly the Internet), now that the entire world has discovered that it is a really important tool.  The one blind spot Milton has is on the appropriateness of direct democracy as a governing mechanism in ICANN. While (in the earlier interviews)Milton accepted and even explained why democracy is frequently not practical in the early development of civil society organizations and structures, he continues to assert that the absence of that democracy is the major flaw of the current ICANN process and structure. The facts are that the ICANN experiment in elections was a disaster, demonstrating clearly the enormous practical problems in trying to run a global online electoral process involving a subject that was not only technically challenging but critically dependent upon both the perception and reality of stable operations for its value.  These are complicated problems that may require less than conceptually perfect solutions to achieve practical results, at least in the short run.  Milton seems to understand this point about global civil society organization, but somehow fails to apply that same reasoning to DNS governance structures, even while noting that many of his civil society colleagues do get the point.  Applying the same perceptive ability to this issue as he has to other Internet governance issues would likely drive him to a different conclusion. 

Joe Sims' description of the ICANN experiment in direct democracy as a 'disaster' requires a longer look. First, ICANN (of which Joe Sims has been an integral part since before the beginning, despite not being staff, appointed or elected) has never explained why it considers the election a 'disaster'. Were that the case, why not convene a working group and address the supposed problems? At least in North America and Europe (I have no knowledge of the other regions) the electorate spoke clearly and the results were consistent with what one would expect. It can hardly be called a disaster when the NA and European reps each have more technical clue than most of the rest of the Board and most of the staff put together. Or that with the electorate's collective wisdom such barbarians at the gates as the owner of pr0n site whitehouse.com couldn't even generate sufficient nominations to get on the ballot. Perhaps the fact that the NA and European reps were largely critical of ICANN is what ICANN considers a disaster, but that is not a failure of direct democracy.

Second, if the election was a 'disaster' it was ICANN which oversaw the process, therefore who should bear the responsibility? The most we have heard out of ICANN was that there was some concern as to the security of the process. Let us not forget that ICANN, late in the process and in secret, contracted long time apologist and now ICANN staffer Kent Crispin (yeah, I bet that went out to tender) to deal with security issues. As Kent Crispin was, and presumably is, well known as an ardent and vocal opponent of direct elections, this was akin to having Jeb Bush decide between GW Bush and Al Gore. Again, this was hardly a failure of direct democracy.

Joe Sims, lawyer for Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, who have made probably into the $millions in legal fees from ICANN, spins this as some sort of choice between direct democracy and indirect democracy but that is a false dichotomy. In ICANN's case, as the above hijinks and now countless more make clear, it is between direct democracy and anti-democracy. At every step and in every way, those attempting to civilly and indirectly participate in ICANN have been shut out, lied to, ignored, denigrated, co-opted, etc. so that ICANN can remain a registry/registrar price fixing cartel and become an overseer of internet content.

By contrast I, a simple computer programmer and terminally bemused ICANNWatcher, have been directly approached by the ITU, total strangers to me, asking me to expand on various DNS related subjects I have written about online. That is, they actively sought my direct input rather than actively fought against even indirect input. I have also been able to, and have on more than one occasion, had my say heard by my government which can then pass it on to the ITU and if I don't think they're hearing me I have redress to assert both my direct and indirect democratic rights. The difference is coming ever closer to black and white.

Make no mistake, with ICANN at best we have a monarchy, the divine right of Kings of industry, and Joe Sims, the shadowy backroom dealmaker and power behind the throne is telling us they have ripped up the Magna Carta as it was a disaster. -g

It's always a little depressing to see people assume that I had so much influence on this process, when the results have been, shall we say, less than steller.  In any event, Gary Osbourne must have missed the working group that was established under the leadership of Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, in 2001 to study these issues.  Its final report can be found at http://atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml While this group's recommendations were not all accepted by the ICANN community, it did represent an important addition to the debate that eventually culminated in the reform process of 2002 and the ICANN structure, including the Nominating Committee that selects a majority of the members of ICANN's Board, that exists today.

on this topic, here's an interesting UNDP/APDIP paper on i-governance.. it covers most of the issues that the wgig has raised (root server admin, IP allocation etc) in what I feel is a sensible manner.

-srs

This is an interesting paper, I'd say - and it has sound and sensible suggestions.

Strongly recommended reading.

regards
suresh

> **Please disseminate widely**
> **Apologies for cross-postings**
>
> ===================================================
>
> UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP)
> Releases ORDIG Policy Brief and Input Paper on Internet Governance
> 7 June 2005
>
> Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet Governance Priorities and Recommendations
>
> ===================================================
>
> After almost ten months of research and activities, UNDP-APDIP's Open
> Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance (ORDIG*) has produced a
> two-part report entitled, "Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet Governance
> Priorities and Recommendations" - consisting of 1) the ORDIG Policy
> Brief and Executive Summary, and 2) the ORDIG Input Paper for the UN
> Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and the World Summit on the
> Information Society (WSIS).
>
> These documents stem from months of consultations involving stakeholder
> groups from the public and private sectors, as well as civil society.
>
> ORDIG consulted over 3,000 stakeholders through sub-regional meetings,
> jointly organized with UNESCAP and others; a region-wide online forum
> that allowed for open and candid discussions on the issues; and a
> region-wide, multi-lingual, issues-based online survey that looked at
> the Internet governance priorities of the region.
>
> The resulting two reports are the synthesis, consolidation, and reading
> of the voices from the Asia-Pacific region.  They outline the principles
> and dimensions that make up the framework for building recommendations,
> which are provided in the documents at two levels - general and specific
> recommendations.
>
> Issues and recommendations covered in the Infrastructure dimension are
> access costs, VOIP, and wireless networks.  Issues and recommendations
> covered in the Logical dimension are DNS management, IP address
> management, and technical standards.  Issues covered in the Content
> dimension are content pollution (spam, viruses, spyware, etc.) and
> cybercrime.  Issues covered in the Social/Developmental dimension are
> culture diversity and participation.
>
> The "Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet Governance Priorities and
> Recommendations" documents were shared with and endorsed by delegates at
> the High Level Asia-Pacific Conference for the World Summit on the
> Information Society, in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran (31 May-2 June
> 2005).
>
> Furthermore, these reports will be provided to the WGIG at their
> upcoming Fourth Meeting (14-17 June 2005), as the Asia-Pacific input for
> the Working Group's deliberation.
>
> For all documents, please go to:
>
> ORDIG Policy Brief
> http://igov.apdip.net/ORDIG_Policy_Brief.pdf
> ORDIG Input Paper
> http://igov.apdip.net/ORDIG_Paper.pdf
> ORDIG Survey Report
> http://igov.apdip.net/ORDIG.Survey.Report.pdf
> ORDIG Forum Summary
> http://igov.apdip.net/undp-apdip forum summary.pdf
>
> Contact:
>
> Phet Sayo, UNDP-APDIP Programme Specialist,
>
> =======================
> * ORDIG is an initiative of UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information
> Programme (UNDP-APDIP), in collaboration with the United Nations
> Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), and
> the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC).  It was carried out
> with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research
> Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

In answer to Joe Sims second post, I did not miss the Carl Bildt working group, which I submit wouldn't have been created were it not for pressure from some within the USG including the Small Business Administration. When I spoke of a working group I meant one to analyse and perhaps come up with fixes for the supposed election 'disaster', not one with a broadranging mandate which would much further emasculate the great unwashed. Regardless, it was the ICANN BoD which created that committee, the committee gave at least equal weight to the input of ICANN's power elite, the registries, registrars, IP interests, etc. BTW, why is it that general (non-)members like myself on the other hand, had and have no say in their relative representativeness. Hardly seems fair. The BoD then took Bildt's already tame recommendations and pretty much gutted them.

I don't consider the resultant At Large Advisory Committee in any way representative of my interests unless it happens by accident. Nor apparently do many others as there are still no bottom up North American representatives (leaving the BoD to pick them), there are only two requests, one of which is representative of IP interests (long pending approval or denial, and why should supposed bottom up groups have to request anything anyway?). Meanwhile, many of those ALAC members who have been selected for various mid-level ICANN roles had or have a personal financial interest in various registries, potential registries, and/or registrars, putting them at the very least in a conflict of interest situation (which is not usually disclosed). thus any hope of a truly independent counter voice for the end user has also been co-opted. I will grant Joe Sims that in addition to the other methods I listed which are used to keep out general participation I should have added 'tokenism'.

Regarding Joe Sims self-confessed less than stellar performance with ICANN, I can only say I look forward to him publicizing what official role he has ever held in ICANN, and assuming there was/is such, just how he got there. After all, ICANN is open and transparent, right? Taking him at his word, I can only be thankful he wasn't more successful in his endeavors. -g