[discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement
David Cake
dave at difference.com.au
Sun Mar 23 06:35:56 UTC 2014
On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:55 pm, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> I would very much agree with Greg that Parminder's scenario of a single entity (or even a single stakeholder group, or organised cabal across a wide range of stakeholders) taking control of the ICANN board is extremely farfetched, a matter for conspiracy theory novels not a genuine worry. It is a scenario that does not plausibly survive even a casual examination of how board members are selected.
>
> Speaking about how board members are selected, i picked the extract below from ICANN site[1]:
> The ICANN Board of Directors consists of fifteen voting members ("Directors")........In order to ensure broad international representation on the Board, each of ICANN's five Geographic Regions shall have at least one Director, and at all times no region shall have more than five Directors on the Board
>
> Considering that ICANN "may" even have a more global role in near future(incase she internalise the IANA/NTIA role). I think the structure of the board needs to change. I don't think its representational enough to allow for up to 5 board members out of fifteen from a region.
Certainly the methods of election of the board members (and the non-voting board advisers) should be under regular review, certainly.
A difficulty however, on enforcing regional quotas on a board that is elected by multiple different methods is that it may be problematic, in that it may unduly constrain some more than others if too rigid. For example, the contracted parties and non-contracted parties of the GNSO each get 1 elected representative. Despite Parminder's fears, these are actually the only two opportunities for business or civil society to directly elect board members. Given they only select one board member each, it would seem unreasonable to expect those individual members to strictly work on quota rules. If civil society gets one opportunity to maybe, if they are able to win out over commercial interests in a ballot, directly elect a single board member, I'd rather that we not have our choice of candidate fairly strictly dictated by a quota system. All the other groups that contribute to the ICANN board apart from the Nominating Committee likewise contribute only one or two, and likewise there is a limit on how constrained they probably should be regarding regional representation. So I'd limit regional quotas to a lower level, because I wouldn't want to overly constrain the democratic choices of other subsidiary bodies that contribute directors.
Regional quotas are a useful tool. But they need to be used carefully not to constrain other democratic processes - and remember the ICANN board is not selected as one job lot, or by a single process, but my many smaller processes that we shouldn't constrain too much individually.
>
> On a lighter note, i think the ICANN board page[2] should indicate directly the regions where the board members come from (we don't need to dig to find out and so we can appreciate the reality). For instance, i can only find one from the AFRINIC region through their profiles(there may be more?)
That is a good suggestion. We do do that for the GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm
And that the CCNSO and the ALAC (by their nature more geographical than stakeholder focussed organisations) do work on a more evenly geographical basis, and so make their members region very obvious. http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council.htm http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/alac/
I would suggest you make your suggestion directly to the ICANN staff.
Regards
David
>
> Regards
> 1. https://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/board
> 2. https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 3:34 am, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:
>
> >> snip
> >> Today, if a focused commercial entity decided to slowly but patiently
> >> seek to gain effective control of the ICANN Board (or if the ICANN
> >> Board itself decide over time consolidate its hold for purpose of
> >> personal gain), I believe that the present NTIA contract would provide
> >> an effective option for putting things back on track (whether via the
> >> threat of non-renewal or via an actual rebidding process)
> >> snip
> >
> > I honestly think this is a really far-fetched scenario. You should look at how ICANN board members become board members (and stay board members). Board members are nominated by quite a number of different methods: 8 by the NomCom (cited by Mike Roberts, which itself has members from disparate groups in the ICANN ecosystem and goes through a significant process to find and select potential Board members), 2 from the GNSO, 2 from ccNSO, 1 from ALAC, 2 from ASO. Nonvoting liaisons from SSAC, RSSAC, and IETF also participate, including on committees. The organizations that nominate these board members look to them to represent their interests on the board. If we feel like someone is not acting as an appropriate representative, they won't stay on the Board.
> >
> > I suppose if John Grisham or Dan Brown decided to turn their imaginations to a scenario such as you imagine, they might be able to come up with something interesting, but the thousands of people you would have to fool and hoodwink boggles my lesser imagination. The idea of the Board consolidating its hold for personal gain is even more far-fetched. Of course, this is not a utopian ideal made real, either, and there are all kinds of criticisms that can and have been made regarding every aspect of the ICANN Board (and every other aspect of ICANN as well). Depending on who you ask, the ICANN Board bends over backwards for Registries and/or Registrars, doesn't do nearly enough to safeguard the interests of Registries and/or Registrars; the ICANN Board bends over backwards for business and/or IP interests, doesn't do nearly enough to safeguard the interests of business and/or IP interests; the ICANN Board bends over backwards for civil society, doesn't do nearly enough to safeguard the interests of civil society, etc., etc. I suppose that if everyone's a little pissed, things are working, more or less.
> >
> > I suppose it's possible that hundreds of people are wasting thousands of hours of their lives, often for no compensation (this is not my "day job," and if I thought about "return on investment" I would stop typing right now), as dupes in an elaborate charade. Based on the percentage of people who believe it, I suppose it's also possible that man walked beside dinosaurs. As one of those potential "dupes," I'm not buying it. And as much as my fellow ICANN participants (including those participating here) and I might be in healthy disagreement on matters of policy, process, outcome, etc., I don't think they would disagree with me on this either. If this type of immense, sustained "con" were true, it would make Jonestown look like a corner lemonade stand.
> >
> > Far-fetched or not, I don't think we need NTIA oversight to protect us from these or other "horribles" proposed on this list. I think it was nice to have while it was around, but we'll do fine without it.
> >
> > As a final note to all on this list, the 2014 NomCom process is accepting nominations until April 1. Feel free to nominate yourself or someone else to a board seat. https://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/2014.
> >
> > Greg Shatan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:12 PM
> > To: John Curran
> > Cc: discuss at 1net.org
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement
> >
> > John -
> >
> > I apologize to anyone on this list who thinks I was lumping them in a paranoid fringe. I was referring to extreme statements from other sources.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:54 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> But what about the existing NTIA role, you might ask. In fact, as others have said, it is an empty role that was never envisaged as part of ICANN. It is not mentioned in the 1998 NTIA White Paper, which contained the policy guidance for creating ICANN.
> >>
> >> Mike -
> >>
> >> Your are correct - the White Paper specified that the organization
> >> derive its legitimacy from the participation of key stakeholders,
> >> which would be membership organizations in the areas of numbers, names and protocols, as well as the direct interests of Internet users.
> >>
> >> It's likely that such a Board structure (and ICANN organization whose
> >> primary focus was on the coordination and oversight across that system
> >> rather than DNS policy development) would be just fine and not require
> >> much discussion of external oversight mechanisms... However, the
> >> organization described in the White Paper does not really resemble
> >> today's ICANN in the least, given that both DNS policy development is actually done within ICANN (in addition to the DNS policy implementation) rather than in a separate DNS membership body.
> >>
> >>> But what about collusion or malfeasance on the Board, you might ask. The process of selecting a majority of the voting members of the Board members has received much attention over the years, and is carefully constructed and controlled by a group of volunteers from the community separately from the Board. It has been reviewed repeatedly. If there is a robust and more equitable method out there, propose it.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, what about that old bugaboo, “capture” of ICANN and the root. In the early years, perhaps, emphasize perhaps, that had some reality. Today, we have a large, informed, engaged, and activist audience for ICANN policy making. We are in the process of making that audience larger and of finding some way short of crude power politics to enfranchise new stakeholders. Only the paranoid fringe can find traction for capture now.
> >>
> >> Today, if a focused commercial entity decided to slowly but patiently
> >> seek to gain effective control of the ICANN Board (or if the ICANN
> >> Board itself decide over time consolidate its hold for purpose of
> >> personal gain), I believe that the present NTIA contract would provide
> >> an effective option for putting things back on track (whether via the
> >> threat of non-renewal or via an actual rebidding process)
> >>
> >> I actually have enormous faith in ICANN, both its Board and its
> >> processes, but do think that it's a reasonable question for the
> >> community to ask whether ICANN is structurally ready today to receive
> >> permanent and irrevocable authority for the Internet identifier system, as in many ways this is effectively what occurs by default upon NTIA ceding the IANA function contract.
> >>
> >> I am neither paranoid nor fringe, and would ask that you refrain from
> >> judging those in the community simply because they are asking questions about what are appropriate mechanism
> >> for governance of the Internet identifier system. As a fundamental principle, we encourage
> >> open and transparent discussion of such matters (even when the answers
> >> are perfectly obvious to those, such as yourself, who have far more
> >> experience.)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> /John
> >>
> >> Disclaimers: My views alone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> > person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> > advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> > party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/1bfb8a2a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/1bfb8a2a/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the discuss
mailing list