*********************************************************
August 8, 2000
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Internet Democracy Project
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org
*******************************************************
The ICANN Nominating Committee recently announced its nominees for At Large elections. Here I offer some analysis of the perspectives that different candidates might bring to the ICANN Board, and I consider their suitability to represent Internet users. (Sources used in this analysis are identified at the end.)
In what follows I consider the following issues:
I. Candidates' Technical Expertise
II. Candidates' Qualifications to Represent Users
III. Regional Breakdown and Gaps in the Set of Nominees
Let me first offer the conclusions: based on the limited information available to date, it seems that most of ICANN's proposed candidates reinforce the perspectives already present on the Board. Most come from the Internet supply industry, the intellectual property community, and the R&D community. Individuals from these groups possess impressive qualifications -- but not to represent Internet users. Only seven of ICANN's nominees seem appropriate to represent users, i.e. they offer perspectives that complement today's Supporting Organization directors. Some regions, most notably Europe, have *no* nominees with a clear user perspective. Therefore, it will be important to develop additional Board candidates through the Member Nomination process (which closes on August 14.)
==================================
I. Candidates' Technical Expertise
==================================
Of eighteen nominees, twelve have strong computer science and networking skills, often based on advanced degrees and careers in information technology research and development. In this group are
Of the remaining six, two candidates have technical training, but not in information technology:
Three candidates have no technical degrees:
One nominee's education field is unknown:
A lack of technical training and experience in computer and networking must be considered a weakness in a candidate's qualifications. It should be noted, however, that three of the four candidates listing no technical training do work in the area of information technology policy, and so presumably possess considerable knowledge of the technology (Katoh, Lessig, and Harris).
=================================================
II. Candidates' Qualifications to Represent Users =================================================
Candidates can also be categorized according to their professional backgrounds and the perspectives and values they will likely bring to Board decisions. Here the big question is how well their background qualifies them to represent users. After all, the At Large Directors will represent Internet users in ICANN decisions.
Interestingly, what it means to "represent users" is not well-defined in today's election rules. The ICANN web site does not distinguish between the different kinds of directors. Some people, perhaps including the ICANN Board and Nominating Committee, might claim that there is no difference between a user representative and a representative of an ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs). In this view, all directors represent everybody.
Yet the by-laws define two different kinds of representatives and presumably for a reason. They would seem to be intended to represent two different kinds of concerns, interests, and perspectives.
At minimum, the At Large directors could be expected to represent perspectives complementary to those already of the SO directors. The At Large directors should not merely reinforce existing groups' input to decisions. At Large directors might even be expected to possess specific user perspectives. Defining a user perspective is difficult, but it would probably include: accessibility, affordability, and rights of speech, privacy, and property. (As noted below, rights of property are already represented on the Board.)
One can begin by identifying which perspectives exist in today's SO Directors. Today's directors mostly represent three groups: the supply industry, technical experts in the R&D community, and trademark and intellectual property interests.
First, numerous SO directors have ties to the corporations that supply Internet goods and services -- companies with strong financial interests in technical coordination. Directors from the supply industry include: Pindar Wong (ASO: Chairman of a trade association promoting the business interests of the Internet service industry), Cerf (PSO: MCI Worldcom), Ken Fockler (ASO: who worked for companies like IBM supplying backbone and networking services, although often to universities), and Phil Davidson (PSO: BT/British Telecom).
Second, today's SO Directors represent the R&D community in computer networking. These directors often have ties to organizations that set up or operate leading edge academic or research networks. They include: Pisanty (DNSO: Director of Computing Academic Services at Mexico's UNAM), Jean-Francois Abramatic (PSO: Chairman of the World Wide Web Consortium), and Robert Blokzijl (ASO:registry operations and research networking). (Ken Fockler, above, might fit here, too.)
Finally, a third group of directors have expertise and formal ties to intellectual property organizations, often in business law. These directors include: Cohen (DNSO: a practicing intellectual property lawyer) and Abril i Abril (DNSO: a professor of law in business competition and contracts and a consultant to e-commerce firms).
Let there be no doubt: these are outstanding individuals who deserve praise for their accomplishments. Some have additional ties to non-profit organizations as well. However, in the main they represent a limited set of perspectives.
If the incoming At Large directors are to complement these directors, then they should presumably not embody the same perspectives. In this logic, At Large nominees from the three communities above are not the best candidates to represent users.
Based on information available to date, it would seem that fully eleven of the eighteen nominees named by ICANN on August 1 reinforce the existing perspectives. The "criterion of complementarity" helps identify these individuals.
Six nominees have ties to the supply industry. These are:
Intuitively, this makes sense. Is a large telecommunications corporation the appropriate representatives of users_ That seems unlikely (although ICANN's nominating committee apparently found them appropriate!)
Two candidates has strong ties to the intellectual property (IP) community:
True, an IP expert does have a valid claim to represent users. After all, intellectual property is a public policy issue that concerns all users. However, this perspective is already well-represented on the Board. The Nominating Committee's decision to reinforce this one user perspective does little to complement the SO directors.
Finally, another four candidates come from the R&D community. These are:
These individuals' expertise renders them well qualified to represent SOs, which are supposed to focus primarily on technical issues. However they seem less well-qualified to represent users.
That leaves just seven of the eighteen nominees as more appropriate user representatives. These seven can be categorized into three groups: small business/economic development, non-commercial users, and public interest advocates.
Five candidates have backgrounds related to networking and small business in developing countries. Most have entrepreneurship and some policy experience. These are:
(Note: Poblete and Popov have some claim to be in this group as well. They have been involved in bringing the Internet to Chile and Macedonia, respectively. However, their primary qualification appears to be their technical expertise.)
One candidate holds a policy position for a large non-commercial institution.
One candidate is a law professor who has performed advocacy for consumers and civil liberties.
All seven of these candidates would complement the existing SO directors. It is worth noting that most of these nominees still have a business and technical perspective. However, small businesses often share concerns with individual users about the potential for excessive influence by suppliers and trademark interests. A university system chancellor is also likely to have different perspective than industry (although U.S. universities are increasingly turning to industry for their financial support.) Only one candidate is distinguished explicitly for his qualifications as an advocate for communication and consumer rights: Lessig. He is the only candidate with a comparable policy orientation to that of the intellectual property candidates.
All seven of these candidates seem qualified to represent users. Depending on how you look at it, "the glass is one-third full or two-thirds empty." ICANN has offered eleven candidates with only limited appeal for Internet users. On the other hand, there are seven with relevant backgrounds.
=======================
III. Regional Breakdown
=======================
Since voting will occur in five regions, it is useful to see where the qualified user representatives will stand for election.
AFRICA: both nominees seem to posses user qualifications (Levin, Quaynor)
ASIA: only one nominee seems an appropriate user representative (Chiang).
EUROPE: no nominee seems appropriate to represent users. (Popov of Macedonia is the closest candidate.)
N. AMERICA: two candidates seem appropriate (Langenberg, Lessig).
LATIN AMERICA: Echeberria and Mouros Campos seem qualified. (Poblete may have qualifications as well.)
Further, it may be worth considering what kinds of candidates are needed in which regions. New nominees from the Member Nomination process might fill gaps in the ICANN-named set:
Small business candidate: Candidates with these qualifications are missing in Europe and N. America.
Non-commercial institution candidate. Candidates with these credentials are missing in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America (i.e. all regions but N. America.)
Consumer and civil liberties advocate: Candidates with these credentials are missing in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America (i.e. all regions but N. America.)
Arguably, every region should have a consumer and civil liberties candidate representing privacy, speech, and access. This is needed to balance the property rights perspective in today's ICANN. Communication rights candidates can shape the terms of the election debates, ensuring that important issues come to the attention of the voting public. Issues of affordability, access, parody, critique, and privacy are unlikely to arise in a debate between, say, Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom, and the International Chamber of Commerce. Today, only North America has a communications rights candidate.
ICANN's Member Nomination process offers the opportunity to develop candidates offering user-relevant perspectives. Potential candidates have until August 14 to put their name forward. (They will then have until August 31 to qualify as a candidate by getting endorsements by 2% of voters in their region, subject to a limit of seven candidates per region.) This analysis may help potential candidates identify whether they can fill a gap in their region.
In summary, ICANN's nominees largely reinforce and repeat the limited set of perspectives already on the Board. A supply industry association can always limit user voices by asserting technical expertise as the criterion for participation. Automakers know more about exhaust gases than urban residents, pharmaceutical manufacturers understand their products better than hospital patients, and the nuclear power industry understands fission better than people living near a plant. The same holds true for Internet naming and addressing technology, which is best understood by the packet-switched communications industry and the associated networking R&D community. Yet other technology-based industries have allowed non-technical stakeholders a voice in decisions that affect them all. Today, Internet users deserve representation in policy-making for the name space. Most of ICANN's nominees are technical experts or interested parties with limited claim to represent users. The challenge of the coming weeks will be to nominate user representatives as candidates for the ICANN Board.
The comments page currently features feedback from Mr. Paul Garrin and Ms. Esther Dyson.
=========================================================
CYBER-FEDERALIST is a regularly-published series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN elections. It is produced by CPSR as part of the Internet Democracy Project.
See:
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org
To subscribe to CYBER-FEDERALIST send an Email to:
=========================================================