[Comment-Aso] Comments on RIR proposal

[bdooley <bdooley@cix.org>]

>Esther Dyson
>Chairman, Interim Board of Directors
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>Dear Ms. Dyson:
>
>On February 5, 1999, several Internet service providers trade associations 
>from several geographical areas across the globe submitted a proposal to be 
>recognized as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) in accordance with 
>ICANN's bylaws calling for the creation of three advisory bodies
reflecting a 
>community consensus.
>
>One of our major goals then - and now - was to stimulate a wider public 
>debate on IP address policies and to promote broad, substantive
participation 
>in the policymaking process.  It should be emphasized that at no time did we 
>advocate preferential treatment for ISPs or any other group as we believe 
>address policies are the legitimate concern of the entire internet
community. 
>
>IP addresses are a fundamental Internet resource without which online 
>businesses and communities simply cannot grow and prosper.  The pool of 
>available addresses is becoming ever scarcer as worldwide demand rises 
>sharply.  The anticipated explosion of Internet applications and network 
>devices will subject address allocation and assignment policies to enormous 
>pressure. Every Internet user has a stake in sound, balanced policies that 
>are thoroughly vetted in public and incorporates the interests of multiple 
>stakeholders. Nothing has transpired in the intervening six months to alter 
>our view that the ASO should be fully representative and transparent both in 
>fact and in rhetoric.
>
>We have been very sensitive to ICANN's and the Internet community's 
>commitment to the principle of consensus.  Beginning with the Singapore
board 
>meeting in March, ISP representatives met several times with the RIRs in 
>person and via teleconference in the hope of crafting a compromise that we 
>could have submitted jointly. Although some minor modifications were made
>the, RIRs' July 23, 1999, submission still is unacceptable to a number of
>organizations.  
>
>The February 5th ISP proposal identified several principles 
>as essential to a consensus-based SO.  These core principles are 
>
>¨ Balance in geography, internal institutional arrangements, authority, and 
>members.
>¨ Inclusiveness and diversity of interests and viewpoints among membership 
>and within the Council.
>¨ Diversity of reasonable views in policies and policymaking.
>¨ Openness and transparency in operations, practices, and policymaking.
>
>By these criteria, the RIR proposal is deficient.  It is also 
>inconsistent with the organizational principles and structures of the two 
>approved SOs.  The RIR proposal permits only RIRs to select individuals to 
>the Address Council, which in turn would appoint three ICANN Directors.  
>Further, the selection process for Address Council nominees is also operated 
>and controlled by the RIRs.  Moreover, in stark contrast to the DNSO and the 
>PSO, no constituencies outside the registries are permitted, ostensibly to 
>avoid bias.  The DNSO realistically recognizes specific constituencies and 
>provides a channel through which they can express their views.  The PSO 
>allows for legitimate entities to become active SDO participants.  We see no 
>rationale for such contradictory policies among the SOs. 
>
>We think that it is crucial for ICANN to develop a flexible and
>representative structure for defining, debating and crafting Internet
>address allocation policies.  While we recognize that the regional
>registries compose one possible means of identifying interested
>constituents, we do not believe that the RIR's "bottom-up membership" model
>adequately reflects the growing variety of constituents affected by
>addressing policy.  We believe a broader plan for achieving inclusion and
>representation in the ASO is needed.
>
>One approach that has been suggested is to have broader representation
>provided through ICANN's Governmental Advisory Organization, its At Large
>constituency or via the Protocol Supporting Organization.  We do not believe
>these suggestions adequately reflect the industry's direct interest in
>specific address allocation and management policies.  Instead, the structure
>of the ASO must reflect the fact that the RIRs are an important, but not
>exclusive participant in the work of the Address Council.  We believe that
>the structure of the ASO should be inclusive and not require that
>participants belong to or participate in the activities in a limited number
>of smaller organizations.
>
>Our interest is the construction of an ASO that has geographical balance,
>supports consensus decision making by a diverse set of constituents, allows
>for balance between technical and commercial expertise, and a democratic,
>open and transparent set of processes for operation of the Address Council
>and nomination to members for the ICANN board.  With those goals in mind we
>would like to make the following suggestions for the ASO proposal currently
>being discussed.
>
>In section 1. "Definition of the ASO" we would like to see language that
>identifies a structure for the general assembly.  Specifically, we would
>like to distinguish between those participating in the General Assembly
>through the RIRs, those participating through industry and trade
>organizations and those "General members" not represented by either the RIRs
>or industry trade organizations.  In section 1, each of those organizations
>should be required to become signatories to the MoU.
>
>In section 2, we believe that the Address Council should be expanded and
>built from the participant groups in the general Assembly.  We propose that
>the members of the Address Council come from the General Assembly in the
>following proportions: 1 individual selected by each RIRs, 3 individuals
>selected by Internet industry trade organizations and 1 individual selected
>by the "General Membership" at the open annual meeting.  We suggest that the
>RIRs and industry/trade organizations who are signatories to the MoU issue a
>public call for the seven nominees 90 days before the annual open meeting.
>Any individual can submit a nomination to either group.  Nominees will be
>individuals who have agreed to run after nomination and their statements
>will be made available on the ASO web site at least 30 days before the open
>meeting.  The selection process for the seven members of the Address Council
>is made through an open and transparent procedure at the open meeting of the
>ASO.  We think that expanding the membership of the Address Council will
>provide a better platform for inclusive decision making and will be far less
>subject to capture or quorum issues.  The proposal also allows new RIRs to
>come into operation, become signatories of the MoU and nominate individuals
>to the Address Council.
>
>We think it is possible to supply implementation details for telephonic and
>email voting for Address Council members as part of the initial ASO
>recognition proposal.  We would like to work with you on a proposal that
>addresses fraud, duplicate voting and privacy issues as well as guaranteeing
>that the widest possible group can participate in the selection process.
>
>We agree that the term of members of the Address Council makes sense.  We
>would like to add a mechanism for nominating and selecting a member of the
>Address Council in the event that a member is unable or unwilling to
>continue their position for their full term.
>
>In section c on "Powers and Duties of the Address Council" we would like to
>revise the process for nomination of ICANN directors to include the
>industry/trade organizations and general membership of the ASO.  The open
>call for nominations should be made by the Address Council and any signatory
>to the MoU, including industry/trade organizations and representatives of
>the general membership, should be entitled to nominate candidates through
>open and representative processes.  In the subsection on Qualifications we
>believe that the ICANN directors should not be staff or Board members of 
>the RIRs.
>
>In section d on Address Policy Development we welcome the changes that allow
>for direct submission of policy proposals to the Address Council from all
>interested parties.  We think that section d and Appendix A should be
>harmonized to reflect compliance and implementation of global addressing
>policy.  Specifically, addressing policy adopted through the Address Council
>and ICANN must have a concrete mechanism for implementation in the
>participating RIRs.
>
>Rather than attempting to limit the ASO to the RIRs and their members, we
>believe that the RIRs should embrace a more inclusive approach to filling
>out the Address Council and ASO constituencies.  The RIRs need to recognize
>that a more inclusive framework, allowing the participation by individuals
>and organizations outside the traditional registries, is consistent with
>ICANN's goal of having supporting organizations that reflect the diversity
>of interests and participants in address policy development.  We look
>forward to working with you on further development of the ASO proposal.
>
>The privatization of the Internet technical resources coincides with the 
>commercial Internet's growth, new users and applications, and emergence of 
>electronic commerce on a global scale.  That expansion must be reflected in 
>ICANN and the supporting organizations.  We urge the Board to ensure that
the 
>ASO is fully representative of this evolving environment and the many 
>interests who deserve to be heard.


Commercial Internet eXchange Association
EuroISPA
CAIP
EcomLAC