IP: Plan to Change Internet Group Is Criticized as Inadequate

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jose M Guardia <joseg () guardiasociados com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:36:28 +0200
To: "Dave Farber" <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Plan to Change Internet Group Is Criticized as Inadequate

Hello,

I thought you and IPers could be interested in this article, in case you
haven't seen it already.

Best regards,

Jose M Guardia


***************************************************
Jose M Guardia
Internet, Media & Technology Analyst
Barcelona, Spain
Ph. (++34) 629-74-26-24
E-mail: joseg () guardiasociados com
www.guardiasociados.com
***************************************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/technology/ebusiness/01DOMA.html

April 1, 2002

Plan to Change Internet Group Is Criticized as Inadequate

By SUSAN STELLIN

he organization responsible for managing the Internet's address system has
embarked on a reform effort that has ignited a contentious debate not just
about its own future but about the very notion of Internet governance.

The organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
was created by the United States government in 1998 to manage the system
that translates domain names like nytimes.com into numbers recognized by
the network.

But as its original narrow mandate has expanded into policy-making
territory, like deciding which extensions should join .com, .net and .org,
the group, also known as Icann, has been criticized for its cumbersome
processes and lack of openness.

In addressing these policy questions — like which extensions should join
.com, .net and .org and how to treat trademark holders — the group, also
known as Icann, has been criticized as slow, bureaucratic and lacking
openness.

At the end of February, Icann acknowledged some of its shortcomings with a
30- page paper written by its president and chief executive, M. Stuart
Lynn, calling for reform. But the proposal, which focuses primarily on
problems in structure and financing, has caused a larger debate.

In the last month, various individuals and organizations have weighed in,
including several members of Congress, who have sent letters asking the
Commerce Department to get involved. (The Commerce Department was
instrumental in creating Icann and continues to have a contractual
relationship with the organization; that contract is up for review this
fall.)

No one seems to take issue with Mr. Lynn's case for reform. In fact, the
paper bluntly admits, "Icann in its current form has not become the
effective steward of the global Internet's naming and address allocation
systems as conceived by its founders." But critics say the remedies Mr.
Lynn proposes, mainly changing how the board is chosen and reorganizing the
board's advisory committees, would even further reduce public
representation, long a criticism of Icann.

The proposal also suggests recasting Icann as a "public-private
partnership" and giving international governments a stronger role in the
organization by allowing them to nominate five members to the board. That
suggestion has set off alarm bells within the United States government,
which intentionally designed Icann as a private nonprofit corporation to
avoid some of the pitfalls of government bureaucracy.

Although sensitive to the fact that the Internet has become a critical
international resource, some people within the United States government are
also wary of any effort to hand over management of the address system to a
multinational quasi- governmental body.

For his part, Mr. Lynn said his proposal was intended simply as a starting
point, and he expressed some surprise at the vehemence of the response.
"The proposal put on the table was bound to change," he said in a telephone
interview last week. "If there are better ways, let's hear them."

Toward that end, Icann has established a Committee on Evolution and Reform,
which is soliciting public input over the next several weeks through a
process outlined at www .icann.org. That committee will make a
recommendation to Icann's board, which is expected to release its own
recommendations by May 31.

But one question is whether Icann has the credibility at this point to
manage its own reform. Some view the Commerce Department as the only
candidate for exerting any influence over Icann and have called for it to
assume a stronger role.

"Commerce needs to make it clear to all involved that they really do need
to compromise and come to some workable structure if they want it to
succeed at all," said Esther Dyson, chairwoman of EDventure Holdings and a
former chairwoman of Icann.

That perspective seems to be gathering momentum. The chairman and several
members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to
Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans in mid-March to express concern that Mr.
Lynn's proposal "will make Icann even less democratic, open and accountable
than it is today."

Ken Johnson, a spokesman for the committee, said it was likely to hold
hearings on the topic. "We are certainly going to have an oversight hearing
on Icann and, as they say, you can bet your bottom dollar that the reform
plan is going to be one of the key issues that we'll examine," he said. He
added that there was "a very good possibility" the hearing would happen
before the summer, noting that the timing of Icann's contract renewal in
September was a factor.

Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, has also sent a letter asking
the Senate Commerce Committee to hold an oversight hearing on Icann. He
raises the question of "whether Icann is even the most appropriate
organization to be tasked with such a critical mission, which is central to
our national security."

Though many insiders agree that the security issue is a red herring (the
United States government still retains control over the so-called A-root
server, the central database of the domain name system), the scope of
Icann's mission is a matter of debate. Even Mr. Lynn acknowledged, "We need
to have a much clearer understanding of Icann's mission, what it's supposed
to do and what it's not." On that note, many heads are turning to the
Commerce Department for clarification.

So far, the Commerce Department has been reluctant to engage itself fully
in that discussion. But the debate over Icann in some sense relies on
clarifying whether it should continue to have a policy-making role — and if
not, who should take on responsibility for policy matters, which are
inevitable as the medium evolves.

Some critics have suggested that perhaps Icann's functions should be split
up, with each function distributed to whatever organization is best suited
for that role, though others say that would ultimately lead to more
bureaucracy and inertia.

For now, the Commerce Department is waiting to see what recommendations
Icann ultimately suggests for reform, though Nancy J. Victory, assistant
secretary of commerce for communications and information, said the
department was conducting its own analysis "so we can make some meaningful
comment on what they come up with."

She specifically called on the business world to provide recommendations to
Icann and the Commerce Department, noting that businesses had not been
particularly involved in this issue.

Ms. Victory also hinted that the Commerce Department was well aware of its
critical role. "Icann is a private-sector entity and they can structure
themselves any way they want," she said. But she was also careful to point
out: "We do have a contractual relationship with them, which we have the
ability to modify, or, if we want, terminate. That is how our input comes
into this process."




------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/