APRICOT 2003 - Stuart Lynn
“ICANN
and the Global Internet: Looking Forward”
Notes by Benjamin Edelman
I. Thanks to APRICOT’s organizers and to attendees.
II. Future significance of domain names
A. Devices to get own domain names. Microphone could get its own domain name.
A. Internet developed with collaborative community consensus.
B. Previously, centralized coordination viewed with a critical eye.
C. Domain names moved from identifiers to identities.
D. Review of birth of ICANN – green paper, white paper, MoU.
1. Difficulty of initial funding. Lack of clear mandate. Lack of authority (“not a government, not a regulator”). MoU provided some authority.
2. Legitimacy through agreements (with registries, registrars, etc.) and community. To extent that Internet community does not see a need for ICANN, personal view is that ICANN will not continue.
3. Goal of international diversity. Hence travel to meet in different countries.
A. Administer Internet’s unique parameters
B. Coordinate root servers
C. Develop appropriate global policies (“as reasonably necessary to technical mission”)
1. Arguably need a framework of accountability to do something about scam, spam, pornography, consumer protection, privacy. But ICANN is ill equipped to address most of these problems. Not part of ICANN to regulate content. Focus on stability of naming and addressing systems.
A. ICANN is good for those newspapers that want to focus on news stories rather than news reports. Much focus on negative news, and ICANN is an easy target for anyone who wants to attack.
B. Folks criticizing (“getting a quote in the paper”): Academics (listed twice on PowerPoint slide --BGE), root server operators, civil society organizations, business interests, international treaty organizations, trademark/IP interests, ISPs, ccTLD registries, etc.
A. At last year’s APRICOT, had just released paper “A Case For Reform” which was already controversial. Noted that ICANN had already achieved many successes (competitive market place for registrars, introduced new gTLDs, policies for dispute resolutions). But perceived that way forward was blocked, requiring reform. No surprise – can’t expect to get it right the first time.
B. Some reform proposals have made it through, others have properly been rejected.
C. As intended, stimulated dialogue and action. Much progress in a short amount of time.
1. Many constructive comments, some non-constructive comments.
2. Review timetable of progress of reform.
3. Key problems:
· Consumption by process. Process had come to prevent effectiveness.
· Insufficient funding. OK to keep ICANN small, but need some reasonable amount appropriate for work to be done.
· Relationships with key stakeholders not in place. Agreements not signed. Didn’t give sufficient role to governments.
4. Results
· Reemphasize core values of openness, transparency, bottom-up processes.
· Restructure the board.
· Streamline policy development process
· Create new avenues for user participation. Online elections impractical, too expensive.
· Solidify public/private partnership
· Improve accountability and responsiveness
A. Recruiting staff. Especially non-US staff. Getting better at obtaining Visas for non-US citizens.
B. Finalize funding plan.
C. Solidify stakeholder commitment.
1. Root server operators.
2. ccTLDs
3. Others
D. Substantive work to be done
1. New gTLDs (or not) (and evaluation of existing new gTLDs)
2. IDNs
3. Streamline IANA
4. Collaboration with international organizations
5. Frameworks of accountability
6. Outreach and education
7. Monitoring and enforcement
8. Security
E. Build trust through partnership and performance.
F. Increase participation.