14 October 1998

Honorable William M. Daley
Secretary of Commerce
c/o Karen Rose
Office of International Affairs
Room 471
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

Re: Management of Internet Names and Addresses

Dear Secretary Daley:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the recent proposals for a new corporation to manage Internet system functions. I am engaged in PhD research at the University of Miami's School of International Studies, where I have been studying this controversy for the last 18 months.  A web page relevant to my research can be found at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html.

*****
I am very much in agreement with individuals who have expressed disappointment with the ICANN proposal, but who are willing to accept it contingently rather than attempt to block it.

Regrettably, consensus has been declared, but not forged.

I share the concerns of those who say that the proposed bylaws do far too little to ensure that publicly open and accountable processes will be followed by the new corporation in the future. The document drafting and board selection processes which led to the ICANN proposal were not nearly as open and transparent as they needed to be in order to support a broad claim of legitimacy.

There are many other significant flaws stemming from the ICANN proposal. These include the lack of Latin American and African representation among the at large members on the proposed Interim Board, and an all too vague conception of what the organization intends to achieve and what membership it serves.

You may recall that this controversy began as an effort to manage the addition of new Top Level Domains [TLDs] to the Internet's name space.  After years of argument nothing has been resolved. Many contentious, difficult questions such as the question of proprietary versus shared TLDs have simply been put off, while vexing issues such as membership qualifications and IP address allocation have been added to the mix.

One imagines that things could have turned out differently under more politically adept leadership. Unfortunately, no one was equal to the task of steering the process through punctuating events like drafting congresses and a ratification meeting. Such an approach would have increased the likelihood that the final product would have been more responsive to the Internet community. It also would have helped foster a public perception of progress and closure as it proceeded through different phases of the process.

IANA's director, Jon Postel, was not predisposed to take on such an outgoing political role, while the IFWP process was too diverse and disorganized to put forward individuals with the authority and respect to offer a strong alternative. Moreover, Ira Magaziner, representing the interests of the US government in this matter, eschewed decisive action, preferring instead to let the controversy among the "stakeholders" take its own course within loosely defined bounds.

Despite these problems, the ICANN proposal does at least provide a tangible hope for a way out of this enduring controversy.  Presuming that ICANN is formally accepted by the US government, it will then be abundantly clear who is officially sanctioned to engage in DNS policymaking. Despite its many shortcomings, ICANN is not fatally flawed. More is to be gained by moving the process forward than by returning the debate back to square one.

It will be up to the new interim board to redeem itself by behaving in an accessible and accountable manner, and then acting immediately to amend the ICANN bylaws to guarantee open processes in the future. Therefore, the interim board should take the specific amendments to the bylaws offered by EFF, OPEN-RSC, and the Boston Group under serious consideration. These are not fringe groups; they reflect the concerns of articulate observers.

If the members of the interim board wish to hear from an intelligent cross section of the community which has been active in online discourse, I suggest they consult with Jim Dixon, Karl Auerbach, Eric Weisberg, Harold Feld, Carl Oppedahl, Ellen Rony, Tony Rutkowski, Scott Bradner, and Kent Crispin.
 

*****
Let me conclude with a philosophical comment. Milton Mueller has written that this controversy is not about some mythical process of industry self-organization, but privatization. That observation deserves repeating, especially in light of Lawrence Lessig's and Rhonda Hauben's heartfelt critiques of the modern thrust toward privatization and the flight from public governance. In my view, the formal establishment of an organization to serve as the authoritative focal point for DNS management does indeed constitute a model of Internet governance, in practice if not in name.  That is why I think moving forward with a flawed ICANN is an acceptable risk. I prefer to see the responsibility for the stewardship of these new global resources placed in identifiable expert hands rather than abandoned to the ebb and flow of chaotic happenstance.

We will know within a short time whether the members of ICANN's interim board have risen to the challenge of creating an open and responsive policymaking organization. If they fail, at least it will be clear who must be overturned.

Thankyou,

Craig Simon
cls@flywheel.com