Question: Barbara pledges to create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy, economics, and the law. Would this be for matters requiring policy judgment, or to help bring forth an understanding of what we don't know? Would they be ICANN staff, or part of an At Large member experiment?

Nominee Replies

Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-17 13:44:52 I support open participation in the ICANN process but I do not support the pledge for an advisory group of experts in technology policy, economics, and the law as described here. I run several technology policy non-profit organizations, all of them on an open door basis. I would continue to operate on that basis for ICANN -- allowing any and all ideas to come forward. For ICANN, should it be helpful to seek expertise or opinions, the fact of the inquiry and the nature of the feedback should be open and transparent to the ICANN user community. In fact, my concern is that an experts group like this proposal would be inimical to creating an open, bottom-driven process that respects the input of the entire user community. Arguably the last thing ICANN needs now is to impose yet another layer of potentially secretive bureaucracy upon users. Finally, I would be concerned about an experts group with such a vague mandate. ICANN has a specific objective and mandate – to focus on the technical aspects of the future of the architecture of the Internet. ICANN must not be used as an instrument to promote policies relating to conduct or content on the Internet. Proposals such as this one run the risk of dragging ICANN into other policy debates. I support crafting ICANN by-laws to explicitly recognize limitations on its powers in order to guard against expansion of mission and scope of the organization. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-17 09:16:52 I can't make this pledge. My pledge is to a process that facilitates the input of the at large membership. In making decisions, of course I would be open to the advise of anyone. But I am skeptical of experts, or processes that elevate the status of experts. Technical expertise is properly delegated in this organization to the SOs. Judgment is not something that is properly delegated to anyone. Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-09-15 20:51:23 My advisory board will be people I consider to be experts in areas that are impacted by ICANN policies, but they will not be ICANN staff. During the last eight years I have spend doing technology policy work within ACM, I have requested and received advice from experts in a variety of areas, for example copyright law, trademark law, software engineering, and publishing. The advisory group will have one and only one charge, namely to assist me in making good decisions based on a sound understanding of technology, economics, and the law. It will consist of experts who share my passion for keeping the Internet a place for free exchange of ideas. My ACM experience has prepared me in several ways for this job. First of all, I know a lot of the experts in the key policy and technical areas. Second, I have learned how to work with people effectively. Third, I know how to work with volunteers - as the members of my advisory board will be. Fourth, I have learned how to reach out to the general membership. I was the first president to establish a president@acm.org userid. I did this to encourage members to express their opionions and to tell me of problems. Both ACM and I benefitted from the input I received from the membership. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-15 14:56:59 I intend to be out there, as I am today and have been for several years, interacting via e-mail with whoever wants to discuss an issue. Of course, there will be people who I have learned have special insights - some of them are candidates themselves. And I will end up informally using them as sounding boards. But I don't think I'd create a formal advisory group - first off, that's just not my style, and second, I don't want to give anyone the impression that they need to go through some council or chamberlain to give me advice of tell me that I'm doing something silly (or worse ;-) Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-15 11:57:27 My advisiory group would would be called upon to help both (policy judgment and understanding of what we don't know). I would draw from the outside for policy judgment with some of the nominees on this ballot hopefully being a part of it. General membership would get to contribute through online forums at which I would respond (but more importantly listen). I would make sure to include outspoken Canadians (perhaps Michael Geist or Christopher Stewart, for example). To broaden the participation, I would also call upon national groups respresenting minorities and women to bring in a broader perspective about what we don't know (from those we don't hear enough from or those who suffer from the digital divide). In terms of needing advice on technology, ICANN staff may be useful, but a sufficient understanding would require a broader range of technology experts from academia and business (and probably the hacking community).