Hi everyone,

Re. below, this is rather lengthy, but as librarians, researchers and
administrators, this is important to be aware of - most
people aren't, nor do they care as long as the 'net' works:)

It sounds like ICANN is still going through organizational growing pains 
it is to be expected. Being global,
one can well imagine the challenges.


------ Forwarded Message

United States cedes control of the internet - but what now?

By Kieren McCarthy

July 27, 2006, The Register

In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States
government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its
position as the ultimate authority over the internet.

Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary
taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over
not-for-profit internet overseeing organisation ICANN, making the
organisation a more international body.

However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge
of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep
control of the net's root zone file - at least in the medium-term.

"The historic role that we announced that we were going to preserve is
fairly clearly articulated: the technical verification and authorisation of
changes to the authoritative root," Kneuer explained following an afternoon
of explicit statements from US-friendly organisations and individuals that
it was no longer viable for one government to retain such power over the
future of a global resource.

Despite the sentiments, however, it was apparent from the carefully selected
panel and audience members that the internet - despite its global reach -
remains an English- speaking possession. Not one of the 11 panel members,
nor any of the 22 people that spoke during the meeting, had anything but
English as their first language.

While talk centered on the future of the internet and its tremendous global
influence, the people that sat there discussing it represented only a tiny
minority of those that now use the internet every day. Reflections on the
difficulty of expanding the current internet governance mechanisms to
encompass the global audience inadvertently highlighted the very
parochialism of those that currently form the ICANN in- crowd.

When historians come to review events in Washington on 26 July 2006, they
will no doubt be reminded of discussions in previous centuries over why
individual citizens should be given a vote. Or, perhaps, why landowners or
the educated classes shouldn't be given more votes than the masses.

There was talk of voting rights, or what the point was of including more
people in ICANN processes, and even how people could be educated
sufficiently before they were allowed to interact with the existing

Ironically, it was ICANN CEO Paul Twomey who most accurately put his finger
on what had to be done. One of the most valuable realisations that ICANN has
ever come to, he noted, was that when it revamped itself last time, it
recognised it hadn't got it right. Even more importantly, Twomey noted, was
the fact the organisation recognised that "it would never get it right. And
so ICANN put a review mechanism into its bylaws".

The reason Twomey's observations are particularly noteworthy is that it is
Paul Twomey himself who has consistently - and deliberately - failed to open
ICANN up, keeping meetings secret, and refusing to release information about
discussions either before a meeting and, in some cases, after the meeting.

A stark warning came from the Canadian government - the only government
except for the US government invited to speak. Recent arrival, but highly
knowledgeable representative, Bill Graham was extraordinarily clear. "It is
time for ICANN to recognise that it is in many ways a quasi-judicial body
and it must begin to behave that way," he said.

"The ICANN board needs to provide adequate minutes of all its meetings.
There needs to be a notice of what issues will be considered, and the
timeframe when a decision is made. A written document needs to be posted
setting out the background and context of the issues. There needs to be an
acknowledgment and a summary of the positions put forward by various
interested parties; there needs to be an analysis of the issues; there needs
to be an explanation of the decisions and the reasons for it; and ultimately
there needs to be a mechanism for the board to be held accountable by its

Everyone recognised the meeting as an historic turning point in the future
of the internet, causing a strange amount of one-upmanship among those
taking part, most of it covering how long they had been involved with ICANN.
Paul Twomey referred to the Berlin meeting (1999); an irregular ICANN
contributor (on the panel thanks to US governmental influence) spoke of
"being there before ICANN was even created". The swagger got so bad that
several well-informed contributors were forced to apologise because they had
only been to three ICANN meetings.

Ultimately, what came out of a gathering of the (English- speaking) great
and the good regarding the internet was two things:

1. That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it
wants to keep the internet in one piece (and it then has to sell that
decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate) 2. That ICANN has to open up
and allow more people to decide its course if it is going to be allowed to
become the internet's main overseeing organisation

If you ignore the fact that the conversation only happened within a tiny
subset of the people that actually use the internet, everyone can feel quite
content in walking away feeling that at least people now understand their
point of view.

As a rare non-US contributor, Emily Taylor, Nominet's lawyer, UK citizen,
and a member of the IGF Advisory Group told us she felt that "the fact that
the meeting took place was as valuable as anything that was discussed".

That much is certainly true. The US has recognised that it can no longer
hope to control the internet. The next step is for everyone invited into the
party this time to recognise that they too play only a small role in the
global revolution that is this jumble of interconnected computer networks.
 Related stories

Future of the net to be decided tomorrow (25 July 2006) US government
urged again to end net role (21 July 2006) US government
told to take its hands off internet (15 July 2006) The internet
needs YOU! (2 July 2006) Governments
to decide future of net (28 June 2006)

 Copyright 2006

------ End of Forwarded Message