|
Public Participation in Internet Governance
Guest: Esther Dyson, founding chair of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2002, Noon EST
As the founding chairwoman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), Esther Dyson has played a key role in the
evolution of Internet policy. Since stepping down from that post in 2000, Dyson has remained closely involved with Internet issues through her company, New York-based EDventure Holdings Inc.
Since its advent in 1998, ICANN has been a lightning rod for criticism, particularly over the question of what role ordinary Internet users should have in shaping Internet management.
Dyson was online earlier today to discuss her efforts to help organize a grassroots constituency of Internet users to participate in ICANN, which manages the Internet's worldwide addressing system. Washingtonpost.com reporter David McGuire moderated the discussion.
Don't miss David McGuire's Nov. 20 article on Dyson and her work to promote public participating in ICANN decision-making. And McGuire's continuing coverage of ICANN and Internet policy can be accessed here.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for
guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
To read the most recent
responses, click "Get New Text"
or select "Automatically Update
Page."
|
David McGuire:
We'll be joined shortly by Esther Dyson, the chairwoman of EDventure Holdings Inc. and former chairwoman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN manages the Internet's worldwide addressing system and sets key policies that affect the cost, nature and availability of Internet domain names. Although Dyson stepped down from her official role at ICANN in 2000, she has become actively involved with efforts to organize Internet users into groups designed to provide the public voice within the organization.
David McGuire:
Esther, thanks for joining us. Could you briefly describe your current role with ICANN and your efforts to drum up grassroots involvement in the organization?
Esther Dyson: g'morning, Dave. As you know, I *was* chairman of ICANN, but my term was up in November 2002. Ever since, I have been ICANN's most loving critic: I'd really like the organization to fulfill its promise. Formally, I'm a member of the At-Large ORganizing Committee, basically the group designated to help create the At-Large Advisory committee, which under ICANN's new by-laws will be the mechanism by which individuals can play a role with ICANN - and specifically, have a presence at the table when new policies are developed.
Note that I did this off my own bat.. the point here is that it *does* pay off (though it takes time) to take the initiative and show up. The goal now is to get a lot more people to do that and for them to collectively create an active, informed, participating At-Large membership.
Falls Church, Va.:
Why, as a member of the Internet using global public, should I care about ICANN? As long as my e-mail and Web browser work, does it really matter to me how the DNS is managed?
Esther Dyson: for most people, it doesn't really matter. they rely on other people to take care of it. But *someone* has to be in there making sure that it *is* taken care of, and that the needs/rights of individuals are considered when policies are made. SO somewhere along the line you need at least some people to volunteer and get active as individuals, and you need a mechanism for them to be paid attention to.
The At-Large will fulfill that role - *if* we get enough people involved to make it effective. That doesn't mean everyone, but it means enough people that it legitimately represents the broad, worldwide public, and not just a couple of insiders.
Arlington, VA:
How much is riding on this grassroots effort? Do you think the U.S. Government will continue to support ICANN if ICANN fails to prove that the public has a real say in its decisions?
Esther Dyson: complicated question. From the point of view of the USG, the At-Large is not the only criterion. Certainly, they want some form of public representation and accountability *to* the public, but they would be reluctant to upset everything over this one issue - important as it is. So I'd rather not test this proposition!
(The USG's second question is: So what would we replace it with and would it be any better?)
Los Angeles, California:
In retrospect, are there things that ICANN could have done differently during your tenure as ICANN's Chair that might have resulted in an effective ICANN At Large that elected half the Board seats?
Esther Dyson: Could we - and I - have done things any better? definitely.
Could we have done them so well that it would have resulted in a half-At-Large elected board? I don't think so. too many things arrayed against it. and see next question.....
Hopkinton, Mass.:
ICANN has been criticized for eliminating the direct popular election of Board members. What are the important differences between direct popular election of nine (out of 19) ICANN Directors (as originally anticipated) and the new proposal for a nominating committee to select eight (out of 15) Directors?
Esther Dyson: this is the key question being asked, even though I think the focus is misguided, so I will attempt to answer.
the important difference is between a nice concept that I think is still far off, and a system that will work that is still a little too internally directed to leave many people comfortable.
A direct popular election is an appealing notion, but we just don't have much of an electorate yet. most people are like the guy with the previous question (sorry, forgot your name and I can't see it!) who wonders why he should care. I think we need some time to build up an electorate organically, get people involved at the grass roots, and surface some people that they might want to vote for on the basis of what they have done re ICANN, rather than an overall popularity contest. We need to build up something organic, rather than - ironically - have a topdown election in a system that has no mechanisms for communication amonghte electorate and those elected, etc. etc.
that said, a lot rests on the quality of the nominating cmmittee and the people they select, and that *does* depend in part on the involvement of the At-Large.
I think overall the notion of ICANN was a little too abstract and architectural. NOw we realize we need to give it some corporeal matter before it can be effective.
to me, the point of the ALAC is to foster person-to-person relationships rather than just a structure for voting. (To use a metaphor from my other life: It's like e-commerce or marriage: you need a rich environment surrounding the transaction to make things work!)
Silver Spring, Md.:
Karl Auerbach has not been shy about criticizing ICANN. Do you think Auerbach and fellow critics have some valid points? Would you nominate Karl for another term on the board?
Esther Dyson: I think Karl and fellow critics have some valid points. But I personally would *not* renominate Karl, because I don't think he has been effective at getting those points heeded. (It goes back to what I said about personal relationships, and beyond that to building some two-way trust and respect.)
Atlanta, Georgia:
Why should ICANN receive an exemption from US Federal taxes when ICANN has repeatedly demonstrated that it has no interest in allowing the public to participate in ICANN except as passive observers while simulataneously rolling out the red carpet for commercial organizations?
Esther Dyson: Sorry, I don't agree with your premise. THe whole point of the last few months is that now they have agreed on a structure whereby they *will* listen. Yes, it took time and patience, but the trend now is positive.
I also think that it is not correct to correlate "commercial" and "insider" in this context. Many of the ICANN insiders are techies, not commercial people. (That is, a lot of people have a blind prejudice against ICANN without really understanding what it is that they dislike... A BBC commentator recently *published* a piece in which he complained about its US-majority board - which just ain't so. Count 'em for yourself! As I recall, it's five out of 19.)
Haddonfield, NJ:
Good afternoon. What exactly does EDventure Holdings do? I've checked out the Web site and continue to be unclear on what the company is all about. Is there a movie-pitch (ie, 20 words or less) answer to that question? Thanks!
Esther Dyson: briefly, we're a small commercial outfit that publishes a newsletter about the IT industry and holds two industry conferences a year. Separately, I invest in IT startups in the US and Europe (includin Russia).
David McGuire:
You've suggested that the success of this grassroots effort depends a lot on strong user participation. How likely is it that you'll get that participation? If you were a betting woman, what kind of odds would you lay on the success of this ALAC structure?
Esther Dyson: I'm betting that it will work....right now, I am laying down my own time and money on it. (And as the last question shows, I *do* have other things to do!)
In the end, it depends on some people getting other people fired up...and that is what all of the people on the ALOC are trying to do. In the end, I think the people matter as much as the structure. Without the people involved already, *nothing* would have happened. They helped create teh structure we have now, and will keep working to leverage that structure into something more permanent, more involved and more respected by the ICANN board and the policy-making community they are joining.
Charlottesville,Va:
I would like ICANN to create the .sex domain for the purpose of giving pornographers their own "place to go". This would eliminate the "accidental" exposures that sites like whitehouse.com create for youths. This would also allow computer makers and software makers the ability to offer parents control that restricts a computer or operating software from accessing porn sites via the .sex domain.
Esther Dyson: just to get off the topic of ICANN governance for a moment an onto the welcome topic of ICANN policies:
forgive me, but that's a bad idea. Unless you regulated all the non-.sex content, this would not result in a porn-free Web....and I think that regulating content is a terrible idea. (YOu're not just saying what *should* be on Whitehouse.sx; you are implicitly saying what shouls and should not be on whitehouse.com.) There are lots of *competing,* market-based filtering tools that work (more or less), and people can choose the ones they want... or none Having ICANN decide (or delegate such decisions to any one party) amounts to censorship of the Net, and the whole point of ICANN is to keep the Net free of unnecessary regulation.
Let's leave these decisions up to parents and individuals, and limit ICANN to a minimum of mostly technical policies.
(Beyond that, there are all sorts of practical implemenatation questions.)
Alexandria, VA:
Is it possible to accurately yet plainly talk about ICANN and its related Internet governance issues? It seems to me that you can talk plainly about ICANN but sacrifice some accuracy in telling its tale, or else you can talk about it accurately at the price of making it sound more boring than a legal brief. How do you reconcile accuracy with coherently -- and easily -- explaining what ICANN is all about to the "common man?"
Esther Dyson: that's what I'm trying to do, of course! it's a real challenge. ON the one hard we want public participation; on the other, most of this stuff *is* really pretty dry and boring....
But then you get into issues like making sure that .sex does *not* happen, and you realize that the effort is worthwhile...
Baltimore MD:
What is the most effective way that the rank-and-file members of the Internet community, i.e., the John and Jane Does who surf it daily, can best impact that medium's future direction and management? Lobbying public officials? Contacting the Internet companies? Creating our own Web sites or becoming involved (even on a volunteer basis) with those already in existence? A combination of the above? Thanks for reading and your thoughts on what I think will increasingly become a key empowerment issue of the 21st century.
Esther Dyson: there are lots of ways... which is the point of decentralization. some people contribute by creating interesting sites, others by going commercial, others by getting involved politically with their own goves, others by getting involved with standards groups or ICANN.
Contract this to, say, the Soviet Union, where there was noting but individuals and the state. THe state owned/controlled all the organizations - policital parties, production operations, schools, libraries...
There's a rich fabric of participants, and individuals need to pick their own way(s) of getting involved. ICANN is one important way, but not the only one. (Its presence does, however, help guarantee "freedom of presence" for all the kinds of organizations (commercial or otherwise) that I mentioned above.
Malibu, Calif.:
If the Department of Commerce gets any more involved won't other countries get angry being told what to do by the U.S. Government? Isn't this one of the reasons why other countries don't want to sign contracts with ICANN?
Esther Dyson: It's a little more complicated than that, but yes, it's important that the DOC should *not* control ICANN in either appearance nor reality. All it can do is specify conditions for awarding/renewing its contract..
FWIW, it's not other *countries* signing (or not) contracts with ICANN, but the ccTLD operators (e.g. .uk for United Kingdom, .ru for Russia, .jp for Japan) signing the contracts...because the whole point is to limit government involvement and leave this in the private, non-statutory sector.
There is indeed some prejudice against the (perceived) involvement of the USG, and also some bad blood built up between ICANN staff and the ccTLDs. as with At-Large, that is now beginning to reverse and some better relations are being built up. but for better or worse, the USG does *not* control ICANN... One issue is for the new members to feel that henceforth *they* will control ICANN (in proportion to their presence) rather than that they are submitting to ICANN's control...
Washington, D.C.:
OK. I'm sold on ALAC. I live in the USA. How do I get started?
Esther Dyson: I'm pasting this in; sorry for the ring of boilerplate.
Information on recent At-large organizing
efforts can be found at http://www.at-large.org/ . The current list of
"At-Large Structures" at http://www.at-large.org/at-large-structures.htm
will give you an idea of the types of groups that will form the basis of the
new "Regional At-Large Organizations," and we expect that members of the
informal "At-Large Organizing Committee" (see
http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm) will be involved in
establishing the regional groups and participating in ALAC activities.
see also next question.
Alexandria Va. :
Even if you build a thriving, global community of users to participate in ICANN --and that's a big "if" -- what guarantee do we have that ICANN will listen to that group?
Esther Dyson: [this reply is also to another question that asks why only orgs can join....sorry, it fell off my screen]
The idea of thousands of people joining "the" ALAC is appealing, but there's no structure to support them right now. (Being open is nice in theory, but it requires people to listen, facilitate, etc. etc.) You could add them all to a list, but - let's be real - if they all started writing to the board or sending opinions to policy committees they would not be heeded.
So instead the idea is to have *organizations* - many of them already existing - as the front lines of membership - and the best way to get public opinion "into" ICANN's policy-making processes. These organizations already have members, people, organizational memory, procedures for surfacing issues, etc. etc. (If ICANN tried to create these from scratch, it would be properly criticized for being too "top-down.") So ICANN is inviting these *orgs* to join and to send individuals who can *participate* in policy-making as individuals.
It's akin to the reason why in the physical world we have parties to develop platofrms and policies, rather than just holding referenda (or online discussions) all the time.
That said, if you don't like the existing orgs, you can form your own and get it to join. One of hte criteria for ICANN orgs is that they be open.
David McGuire:
Some members of our audience are asking whether the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) wouldn't do a better job than ICANN at managing the Internet's addressing system. What do you think about increased ITU involvement?
Esther Dyson: First of all, I am trying to be open-minded about the ITU. If someone can really do a better job than ICANN, god bless them! It's easy to criticize ICANN; it's much harder to come up with something that would really work. (One good sign is that the criticism comes from many directions... That is, many people want ICANN to do what *they* want; the goal is for ICANN to do what mostly *everyone* wants, and for it be generally fair and forthright... It would be easy for it to favor one group or another; what it has to do is to *balance* all the interests...)
Back to the ITU: AS I mentioned earlier, it's important for ICANN's power to be limited. It should fill a vacuum so that *no one* can control content on the Net worldwide, so that no one can monopolize the domain-name business, so that almost everything remains free and competitive except for a small number of global policies.
The problem with the ITU is that it is too "established" - too tied to governments, existing authorities, etc. WHile the whole point of ICANN is that it operates on the basis of consensus and consent from its members. An ITU-controlled ICANN would be likely to have too much power. It's a subtle issue, but a key one.
David McGuire:
It looks like we're about out of time. I'd like to thank our audience for all of their thoughtful questions. And thank you Esther for taking the time to answer them.
Esther Dyson: Thanks! this was stimulating! I hope I helped clarify some of the issues around ICANN, and that at least some of you take an active, positive interest and decide to get involved.
edyson@edventure.com
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
