[WSIS CS-Plenary] INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT: "What to Do About ICANN"

[Hans Klein]

Dear Robert,

Thanks for the citation to this interesting article by Geoff Huston. (I am 
responding under my original posting subject, but your message is below.)

I think where our "What do Do About ICANN" piece differs from this article 
and others is that we don't propose a single, "right" governance 
institution.  Rather, we propose a decentralized model of coordination and 
competition.

There is no one single institution that is perfect for global Internet 
governance.  ICANN is not perfect.  The ITU is not perfect.  Any other 
proposed model will not be perfect.  But we are not trapped in that choice set.

Decentralization takes multiple unsatisfactory models and combines them 
into a system of checked and balanced governance.  "Ambition must be made 
to counteract ambition." [1]  This is an established principle in the 
design of governance systems, and it has a pretty good track record.

Each branch of a decentralized system has a powerful incentive to cooperate 
with the other.  Each has a powerful incentive to compete.  The combination 
of cooperation and competition is very beneficial for the public 
interest.  It yields a degree of vigilant, expert, and continuous oversight 
that is otherwise difficult to achieve.

Hans


Reference
[1] James Madison/Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist Paper No. 51"
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm





At 08:53 AM 4/6/2005, Robert Guerra wrote:

>I came across the  March 05 edition of the Internet Protocol journal - and 
>found an  opinion article on ICANN, the ITU, WSIS and internet 
>Governance..details are below.
>
>
>regards
>
>Robert
>
>
>The Internet Protocol Journal, Vol.8, No.1
>http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/about/about/c644/ccmigration_09186a008042a4a4.pdf
>
>Opinion: ICANN, the ITU, WSIS, and Internet Governance by  Geoff Huston, APNIC
At 01:07 AM 4/6/2005, you wrote:

>     *********************************************************
>                     The Internet Governance Project
>                     announces a new policy analysis:
>
>                     "WHAT DO TO ABOUT ICANN:
>          A PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURAL REFORM"
>
>                     www.InternetGovernance.org
>
>     **********************************************************
>
>The authors analyze how ICANN exercises governmental powers
>without possessing corresponding mechanisms for accountability.
>They propose three accountability mechanisms:
>1. Creation of an international oversight body to replace US
>     oversight of ICANN
>2. Restoration of ICANN's global elections
>3. Decentralization of the Internet root zone and coordinated
>     management between ICANN and the ITU.
>
>The paper is available at the Internet Governance Project site:
>      http://www.internetgovernance.org
>The executive summary is below.
>
>This analysis will be discussed in an on-line forum to be held
>on April 22, 2005. Additional details to be announced.
>
>
>The Internet Governance Project is an interdisciplinary consortium of
>academics comprised of:
>Dr. Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School of
>       Information Studies
>Dr. Hans Klein, Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology,
>       School of Public Policy
>Dr. John R. Mathiason, Adjunct Professor, Syracuse University
>       Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
>Dr. Lee McKnight, Associate Professor, Syracuse University School
>       of Information Studies
>Dr. Marc Holitscher, Lecturer, Institut für Politikwissenschaft der
>       Universität Zürich
>Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn, Assistant Pofessor, Syracuse University,
>       School of Information Studies
>
>###
>
>
>                             Executive Summary
>
>                     "WHAT DO TO ABOUT ICANN:
>          A PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURAL REFORM"
>
>                    by Hans Klein and Milton Mueller
>
>With the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in
>Tunisia quickly approaching, and with the work of the UN Working
>Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) well underway, it is time to
>identify concrete policy options for Internet governance. Any
>initiatives in this area must address the criticisms that have been
>made of ICANN.  Although the international community has defined
>“Internet governance” in a way that goes beyond ICANN’s control
>of domain names and addresses, ICANN nonetheless remains
>central to many issues. Here we propose a series of structural
>reforms for it.
>
>The proposals here are designed to address the most important
>criticisms that have been made of ICANN. These criticisms include:
>*  Concerns about unilateralism by the US Government in its control
>    of the DNS root and its supervision of ICANN.
>*  Dissatisfaction with ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC),
>     where governments have only advisory powers.
>*  The perception that ICANN’s governance model does not properly
>     balance the interests of developed and developing countries and
>     suppliers and users.
>*  Concerns about the relations between ICANN, country code top
>     level domain administrators (ccTLDs), and national governments.
>*  The overall perception that ICANN lacks legitimacy.
>
>To address these issues, this paper proposes the following reforms
>for ICANN:
>1)  Limits on power and internationalized oversight. A legally-binding
>      international agreement narrowly defining ICANN’s powers and
>      replacing US Government supervision with internationalized
>      supervision .  This would allow abolition of ICANN’s Government
>      Advisory Committee.
>2)  Democratization. Reinstatement and strengthening of the At Large
>      membership of ICANN, especially a return to election of the At Large
>      Board members and the granting of voting rights on ICANN’s GNSO
>      to At Large representatives.
>3)  Competition. Coordinated sharing of responsibilities between ICANN
>      and the ITU in a way that would allow ccTLD managers and IP address
>      users a choice of alternative governance arrangements.
>
>See full analysis at:  http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>###
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary