ICANN Board Members Squat

Professor Froomkin has written a strong criticism of the ICANN initial board, which has extended its unelected one-year term to an astonishing four years, with no end in sight. According to ICANN's current bylaws, those board members are serving a life term - their terms never expire. I strongly urge Slashdot readers in California to make time to attend ICANN's next meeting in November.

Comments

Re:Give them more time; they mean well

[Stephen Samuel]

It took decades and sometimes centuriesfor the constitutions of each of the United States to be adopted,and before then, you could have made the same argument about squatting rulers.

Give them more time. You mightbe pleasantly surprised by how well the democratic process can work when allowed.

I think that precisely the point is that the democratic process is not being allowed to word. It looks to me like they got spooked by the fact that, when democratic elections were allowed, their 'ringers' didn't win... This bodes ill for them keeping their positions when offered for election.

Yeah, I know, this is getting into the domain of consipiracy theory.
________

I think that a two-pronged approach to this issue is worthwhile.

One prong is the public demonstrations. Make sure that these people understand that we the people are not interested in lifetime appointments to the icann -- especially unelected appointments.

The other prong should be the development of realistic alternatives to the (currently) established system. It is doable, but it's going to take some work. With the pending implementation of IP6, there's actually some room to manouver in.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!

Re:Why...oh why....

[Stephen Samuel]

Considering that most people won't even change to a resolution above 640x480x60Hz on a brand new 19' monitor, ABC's site will never see a hit except by a few geeks.

Most non-geeks point their machines at their ISP's nameservers. That's where the pointers to the 'root' servers exist. The actual change needs to take place at ISP name servers... Very few non-geeks actually run their own nameservers.

This is actually looking more and more doable as time goes on.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!

Re:Give them more time; they mean well

[Ektanoor]

More time? Because the Constitution of each of the United States took centuries? In a world where seconds, not years count? And what is this story about consitutions being adopted during centuries? As far as I know it was a Conevention of a few guys in shorts, long hair, speaking bad english, smelling tobacco and being some of the highest minds of their century that wrote the Constitution of The United States of America. And I don't think they were sitting centuries there to write it.

Now some gentleman in bright cleaned suits and having some bad popularity around about their capacities, should stay for longer than the rules allow them?

Let me tell you one thing. Here some people are trying to move the President of Tatarstan, Mr. Mintimer Shaimyev into third term. The Constitution of the Russian Federation strictly forbids Governors or Presidents to be more than two terms. Now Mr. Shaimyev is a national symbol here. This man did more than any other regional leader to hold up the Federation together. In his Republic he did so much that, if elections would be today, 70% of people would still elect him as President. Now there is the Law of the Federation. Some local politicians tried to overcome it and even found a legal issue that effectively gives a chance for Mr. Shaimyev to be a legtimate Presidetn for four more years.

Now what we have? A national symbol, a Constitution stating two terms no more, and several Federative acts that give the chance to be elected more than two terms. These acts are mostly due to the "interim" situation that happened after the fall of Soviet Union. Nearly all of them will loose any sense after 2010. Anyway they still work. So what Mr. Shaimyev does?
He refuses to be elected for third time...

Not that he would not like to be elected. But suddenly someone reminded that these are not only elections and state jobs. It's the validity of the Constitution itself. There it is written black on white "no more than two terms". By overpassing it, even legally, it would weaken the meaning of the Fundamental Law in front of the whole Federation. What today seems correct, tomorrow may turn to tragedy. Suddenly people will start to pass over the Constitution. Laws may start to be issued on the corner of the constitution. Governors will start to stay "for life", because one act, a law, federative agreement or his intuition says that Constitution does not fully cover all cricumstances. Emergency may be called by the President (I don't mean Mr. Putin but the job) without consulting anyone because "there is an emergency and it is too hard to follow the Constitution".

We have here a similar situation. Yes there is some "interim situation". However the White Paper states, black on white, "no more than two years". So? Even if all these guys are good people. and suddenly they are real great people. And one of the elected members starts overpassing the White Paper and issuing rules above his powers. Why he would stop in front of these "great people". In front of the White Paper, they are ilegitimate...

Re:Why...oh why....

[Shotgun]

This is actually looking more and more doable as time goes on.

You still missed the main point of my post. After you have done it, what do you have? You've now picked another ruler.

For those who have read Animal Farm, you've traded the humans for the pigs. Are you any better off? Would it not be easier to force the humans to act correctly in the first place. Someone must rule, and without checks and balances they will rule in their own interest. Creating another system without installing the checks and balances is a waste of time at best and most likely counter-productive.

ICANN members forum

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd suggest you have a look at ICANNmembers.org. There'll be a public meeting dealing with the question how public participation in and transparence of ICANN can be improved on Sunday, November 12.

A call for papers for that event will be published in a day or two.

Recall board members

[Vassily Overveight]

I haven't read the bylaws of the ICANN, but presumably there's a procedure for the membership to recall a board member before his/her term is up. My suggestion is that members do just that to all of these people (or at least the ones who voted for the term extension). Otherwise, before you know it this bunch is going to start voting themselves pensions.

Re:Recall board members

[Wellspring]

Nope. In fact, @Large members aren't even, legally speaking 'members'. ICANN wrote the rules (along with their incredibly expensive California law firm) to ensure that laws protecting members' rights did not apply.

Ultimately, the President's move to create ICANN was understandable but flawed. I thought it was a good idea at first myself. ICANN was originally intended to replace the Dept. of Commerce as the regulatory body for the Internet (not just the DNS system). Unfortunately, you can't run the Internet the way you do the public school system. (In fact, with athletes getting away with felonies and kids graduating not able to read, you probably can't run the public school system this way either...)

The problem is that the Internet is based on enlightened anarchism. The better implementation tends to win on the net-- not the media darlings. All the good press on Salon and Wired in the world can't make up for a weak idea.

The idea of ICANN is based on the premise that experts, when insulated from ignorant or selfish people, can run people's lives better than they could themselves. I doubt that that is true in even the Real World, but in Internet infrastructure, there isn't even a question that that is a stupid idea.

Ultimately, the pundits and players who appear on CNN when they talk about 'the crisis in cyberspace', whatever the crisis is that day, do not run the internet. The market does, ie every individual user's decision. I have always felt that we need unlimited TLDs. Now I wonder if we even need a centrally controlled DNS system. We do need some kind of governing body. But it has to be based on law and order-- not stupid and manipulative 'experts'. Since rules are by definition applications of force (or the threat of force) we need to be minimalists.

venice beach is blocks away ..

[aberoham]

If anyone has the time but not the cash to blow on the Marina Marriot, Venice Beach and all of it's cheap accomodations are just a few blocks from the Marina.

(I can see the hotel and ICANN's building from my apt, which is in venice, ca...)

venice cotel

venice beach hostel

--ai

Viva La Revolution!

[Greyfox]

As the ICANN starts pissing off more and more of the non-corporate world, a revolt will form and start to build up steam. The internet still works pretty much the way it always has, with standards appearing and disappearing as people use them. It may be as simple as people setting up their own root servers or it may be as dramatic as a complete reworking of how DNS works. I'd much rather see the later, but we'll see how things shape up.

Re:Screw This

[King of the World]

They control the trickle of DNS, so pull the carpet out from under them.

The best alternative i've seen OpenNIC's openly open OpenDNS.

Is there any technical reason why DNS servers (probably provided by your ISP) can't add OpenDNSs details too?

Re:our internet?

[llywrch]

> it's a CORPORATION, and as such, can be
> severly hurt by bad publicity. it's also subject to government regulation.

Except that they've taken the first steps to isolate themselves from public opinion.

While probing the various links about the November meeting, I found the web page where the comments that get sent to comments@icann.org get posted. The page links to no letter more recent than May of 1999, & itself was last updated on 23 April 2000. (At least that's what it says.)

They're trying REAL hard to ignore their community now, aren't they?

Geoff

Re:Oh, let's just give up

[nagora]

Alternative root servers are VERY possible. You can basically treat them the same as you would internal network rootservers. If they don't have the proper answer, then send the query to the ICANN root servers. Job done.

Yes, I know that there are alternatives which work in this way, but the problem is that ICANN has no reason to care about alternative roots and so will have no compunction about selling domain names which overlap with ones registered in the alternative servers. Then chaos ensues.

Another, possibly bigger, issue is the commercialisation of any centralised domain system. Once it gets popular it starts being the object of business and control starts to leech away to those with the cash (eg anyone interested in the olympics can forget about setting up a web page with the word in the url). A centralised system means one (or a few) people can be leant on/bribed/sued by the big guys with their cries of "IP".

I sometimes think the whole idea of text-based urls will be the downfall of the net. Think about the number of court cases that would never have appeared over the last 4 years if the IP address was the only way to contact a web-server.

TWW

The flaws in ICANN's foundation are proving fatal

[trims]

I was one of the optimists when ICANN was first founded. Yeah, sure there were some problems, but surely we could work past them in good faith to get a fair, equitable system which would straighten out the DNS mess.

I'm wrong. I admit it. Kick me.

ICANN is fundamentally flawed, and the flaws aren't fixable. Time to de-charter ICANN and do it right from the beginning.

The only way we can get an ICANN-like organization to really work is to make sure it has some reasonable fascimilie of these characteristics:

• Final Authority over Domain Disputes Worldwide - realistically, about the only way to do this is to get an international treaty together which designates the new org as the final legal arbiter of all domain disputes. This is by far the hardest thing to do, but it's really essential to make it work.
• A clear, concise, and equitable Dispute Policy - the new organization needs to have a very clearly spelled outdispute policy. It must include provisions which allow small parties to contest on an equal footing as large ones. And it need to have the infrastructure put in place to resolve these disputes (a "court system" if you may).
• Perpetual Non-profit Status. Not just not-for-profit, but the org must be a true public trust. Require that all board meetings be public, announced at least 6 months in advance, and that there may be no additions to the adjenda within 2 months of a meeting. Personally, I would require a 2/3 majority for any policy change, and NO changes to the bylaws. Bylaw changes should only be allowed via a public election.
• The Ability to Levy Fees for Domain Registration - in order to remain free of undue outside monetary influence, the new Org has to be able to raise money for operations. The treaty mentioned above needs to give the org the right to collect fees for operational expenses. Probably the most equitable way to do this is require that all designated Registrars pay something like $1/domain/year. This needs to be legally enforcable, so that Registrars refusing to pay (like NSI) can be cut off at the knees.
• A Wholely Member-Elected Board of Directors - period, no argument, no appointments. I would go for 2 year, non-consecutive terms (that is, you can run again after a term on the board, but you have to wait 2 years before doing so).
• A Reasonable Election Process, which balances regional representation and attempts to stop vote-stacking. By this I mean that I want to avoid the problem of highly-motivated small groups from being able to determine the entire representation of a region. Personally, I think it would be reasonable to have 3 Directors from each region. As a voter, you are only allowed to vote for ONE candidate, and the top three vote-getters win. This allows smaller groups to concentrate and at least get a voice, but it prevents larger ones from stacking the whole deck. An additional restriction that might be useful is that there may be only one director at a time which is employed by a single organization, corporation, or government department. For example, it wouldn't be legal to elect two directors who were both employed by Cisco.

These are the biggest things that ICANN doesn't have, and that any successor organization must have. I'm sure I've missed a few, but it's a good start.

Time to De-Charter ICANN and Start Again.

-Erik

Think about it...

[Danse]

If a new organization was created and gained anything approaching wide usage, it would be deemed outlaw by the U.S. government and others. If there was so much as a hint of some corporation's name being used in a domain name handed out by such an organization, you'd have FBI kicking down the door and hauling everything and everyone away, probably with no charges filed and no right to know the evidence against them. The media would be told that a bunch of hackers were violating copyright law in a massive way and everyone would just accept that as fact. The government just saved the Internet. Hooray for the government.

Okay, that's a pretty cynical view of things, but who believes that such an organization wouldn't be destroyed either by litigation or by the government? I seriously doubt they'll let their corporate-owned Internet face any competition.

"Milosovec tried it, why can't we?"

[s390]

The was the comment seen at The Register.

This needs more exposure and heavy ridicule. The only way to lever them out will be to shame them. That and lawsuits, angry letters to Congress and the Executive branch. Publicity is a start, but this is in danger of being ignored as "normal" bureaucracy.

Dangerous precedent

[Ektanoor]

This attempt to turn into a Member at Life is extrmely dangerous. It is not only a problem of elections. Mostly it is a problem on the validity of the White Paper and consequently on the validity of the whole organisation. It seems that some people got too acustomized to the heat of their seats at ICANN and do not want to go in the cold. Soon they may think that ICANN is not doing enough so it should rule that and that. A little more and they will start saying "L'Internet c'est moi"...

There is a interesting point mentioned on the article:
"Back in the days of the White Paper, the document which still provides the foundation for whatever legitimacy ICANN may retain, the United States government assured all that the initial, secretly appointed members of the ICANN Board were only temporary."

Well if these guys get too nuts, then we should direct protests not to them but to the Government of the United States of America. He is the guarantor that the White Paper will not be violated. No matter how feelings, thinkings and relations with this organism, I think that they will not sponsor such clear violation of the principles that rule its establishment. With propper argumentation, they will surely act and tell these guys that is time to leave.

PS: For those who don't know History and/or French. "L'Etat c'est moi" - "The State is me". It was said by King Louis XIV of France during his rise to power. This King was the most famous monarch and despot of the times of Absolutism. During his reign, he managed to concentrate all state control on himself.

Re:Screw This

[BlackHat]

It has been suggested before but go back to trading Host files. Use CGI host, IP adresses, or even write a new dns-app. There are a number of ways you can remove ICANN from your sphere. Their relevence is only what we let them have. Issue has and will be how much power you give ICANN (or its replacement) for the service of propagation and housekeeping. Keep it powerless and Biz will flog it, give it to much and it flogs everyone.

Re:Pick A Time

[Apotsy]

Looks like the "public forum" listed on the schedule on Wednesday might be a good time and place to show up, however, I'll bet they will be very prepared for that, and will probably have pre-selected people to come up and ask non-embarassing questions. I doubt it will be very "public" or much of a "forum".

Instead, I think the actual board meeting on Thursday would be better. I'm definitely going to be there, with protest signs. Possibly a bullhorn, too.

Fine Print

[NevDull]

"ICANN stay here as long as I want" -Initial Boardmembers

-Nev

One problem any radical movement faces:

[Galvatron]

Okay, let's suppose for the moment that we actually manage to get enough support to make this thing viable. What would our constitution say? (I assume you mean constitution and not declaration of independence, because a declaration is akin to a manifesto, while a constitution is a binding set of rules) I, for one, would want some basic protections, for example I wouldn't want someone creating a mirror of my site and then claiming credit. Other people, like you, may want no protectons. Still others might want more protections than me. Very soon, instead of creating one new internet, we'll be trying to create 10, each of which has maybe 100 users. It's a nice idea, but it probably would not work. Besides which, even if you did get it to work, by declaring that you will be unbound by national laws, even if you're not arrested, you certainly won't get any protection if black hats kill your site.

Screw This

[artful]

Is anyone else tired of this BS? You know what I am tired of the most is the blatant exploitation of *our* the "geek" communities hard work in created all that is the damn internet, and now that there is profit to be had we get thrown aside like pricks trying to fuck up their *property*. Corporations, politicians, and non-profit organizations!

I say we split! Why the hell haven't we? Fork off a new Internet. (Internet2 doesn't count) Get back to basics. A place where source is open, ideas are free and remain free and it is all voluntary. A place that from the start declares If your looking for profit, fuck off.

I know, maybe offtopic. mod me down, maybe someone will read this. Maybe someone will find some inspiration. That's I can hope.

So how about it? Would it be possible for a second ICANN to be formed by people that care about the common good?

How about a new internet with a Declaration of Independence right from the start that says We the people say we are unbound by your countries laws, anything you put in is owned by all, this is a free-for-all baby!

I know, it will never even come close to becoming a reality, but it sounds good doesn't it?

Re:Screw This

[osgeek]

Corporations, politicians, and non-profit organizations!

Those organizations can make problems at times, but with the ICANN, I see the major offenders as the little guru wanna-bees, who are constant malcontents. A few years back, I was a lurker on the main mailing list where domain changes were being discussed and decided. I can't recall the name of the list, but I do recall the political environment. You had some people who were just stellar leaders, like Paul Vixie, who were working their asses off and making sense as proven technical leaders. Then you had a few crack-pots who were always complaining and screaming about every little thing - apparently just to have something to post about.

In a smaller environment like that mailing list, where the participants were more informed, the crack-pots were mostly ignored. Unfortunately, as the process has opened up to a wider audience, that audience hasn't been able to keep abreast of the history and details of the issues. That's really opened up the door for the crack-pots, some of whom have worked their way into ICANN.

It's a shame, but it's a tradeoff that we in the technical community are constantly making. Time and again, we have some technology that seems cool, but lacks the real development that comes with popular acceptance. Unfortunately, with popular acceptance comes the ignorant influence of the masses.

Why...oh why....

[JoeShmoe]

...can's application and operating systems put a new DNS system as an OPTION (not necessarily even a default). Every program that comes out should add this! I don't care what it is.

One click in Opera or Lynx or Netscape to allow it to check with DNS servers run by people who serve the public interest and not bend over for big business and electing themselves emporer for life? A click in WinAmp to enable you to connect to Shoutcast servers located by a NullSoft DNS server (imagine having TLDs based on music genres?)

Better yet, a list of servers that people could pick or choose from based on reputation. Don't like ICANN? Disable the root servers entirely and get your .com .net .org from AlterNIC or whoever.

Operating Systems to could easily make this a part of their DNS configuration menus.

All we need is someone to create the standards and provide some kind of reputation for DNS servers. Surely this is worthy cause? Won't someone just do the paperwork necessary to start the Domain Freedom Foundation so I can contribute large heaping amounts of cash to something that will kill Network Solutions and ICANN once and for all?

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -

Re:Why...oh why....

[Shotgun]

Because it wouldn't work for any reasonable amount of time.

So company XYZ wants a domain name so that the people can easily find their web site. What name service do they go with? The most popular of course. The people want an easy way to find company XYZ. Which service do they use? The most popular of course.

But company ABC, out of moral impetus, refuses to use the most popular. What's the result? Considering that most people won't even change to a resolution above 640x480x60Hz on a brand new 19' monitor, ABC's site will never see a hit except by a few geeks. To stay in business they must switch to the most popular. Eventually, the only service left will be the most popular. Who will controll it then? Don't say, "We will", unless you're willing to define 'we' and a method of how the 'we' will control. If you can define those two parameters, it makes more sense to replace the head of the current system with your definition than to replace the current extensive infrastructure.

The point is, you can't run and hide to a different technical solution every time someone tries to usurp power. The way of the world dictates that some people work to create, and some people work to dominate the creation of others. If you move to a new technical solution, the dominators will simply move in to take it over. Who else is willing to give up their technical pursuits in order to manage any new solution you come up with? Any one willing to wants the power, not to create new geek toys, so you immediately get yourself into the exact same position.

This is a social problem, not a technical one. This problem requires that geeks pull their heads out of their monitors, stand up and say, "Hell no. You're not going to simply walk in here and claim our work for yourself. Get the hell out." Then we have to install people who want to be in power, but put checks and balances in place. They must know that they can get kicked out just like the last group if they don't look after the proper interest.

I think a valid response would be to get a lot of the big names that actually were responsible for the internet and DNS together (Al Gore would probably like to head up the group), and let them go on for a while about how this group is quickly losing its legitimacy. Especially in America (I can't speak about other cultures since I don't know them), people get upset when they hear of someone usurping the work of another. So all the inventors get together, send a letter to Congress which says, "Heh, they're stealing our stuff", then give a few whiny interviews on Opra. Politician will start raving about the injustice, the Pres will hold some town hall meetings, Heraldo Rivera will do a special where he finds the draft of a DNS spec in a locked vault of a demolished building. In other words, watch how quickly things change to the way we like them.

Always remember, society is just a system. Learn to hack it.

What the hell, maybe I'll go too.

[VValdo]

Although after the debacle of "Microsoft Refund Day" I'm a big hesitant to participate in any such activism.

Promise me no one will be there dressed as Obi Kenobe. Seriously.

W
-------------------

Uh, I meant..

[VValdo]

that's obi-WAN kenobe.

it's 4:42 fri night. cut me some slack.
W

-------------------

ICANN's legitimacy

[pchown]

When the US government set ICANN up they didn't seem to understand that people had a choice whether to use it or not. You can put services—such as root DNS—on the Internet, but you can't force people to use them.

I could set up a root DNS service tomorrow. No one would use it, but technically it could be done. If ICANN start to depart from what most Internet users want, someone will set up something different that will gain wide acceptance.

Remember the Name.Space people? Their proposal would have worked technically even if there were other reasons why people were against it.

Re:Oh, let's just give up

[Stephen Samuel]

Alternative root servers are not the answer as they always have to mesh with the existing servers and the control issue appears all over again. But perhaps there is no solution that is backwards-compatible with the current DNS.

Alternative root servers are VERY possible. You can basically treat them the same as you would internal network rootservers. If they don't have the proper answer, then send the query to the ICANN root servers. Job done.

Once you start to get some respect for the new system, though, it can start to be a problem when the icann servers start passing recursive lookups to you.. You need a way to recognize that a recursed domain isn't in either 'root' server set.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!