Internet Governance Forum Part-1 ( ICANN Formation)
Dear Colleagues, I am currently attempting to work on Internet Governance and am studying this
subject on a regular basis so that I can contribute to the community's learning and share what I
learn with those of you who are interested in working on Internet Governance or who will work
in the future. I'll do my best to share.
While researching internet governance, I discovered that it began in 1997-1998 with the formation of
ICANN. While reading the formation process, I discovered that on behalf of the ICANN Board “Esther
Dizon” (Interim Chairman) wrote a letter to the “J. Beckwith Burr” Assistant Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, United States
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230
In the letter, ICANN's Membership, Transparency, Independent Review, Certain Conflicts of Interest,
Geographical Diversity and Conclusion have highlighted a total of 7 points.
I presented the letter exactly.
Formation of ICANN; we were there
ICANN
Transmittal Letter from ICANN to NTIA, November 23, 1998
INTERNET CORPORATION
FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
November 23, 1998
J. Beckwith Burr
Associate Administrator (Acting)
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Associate Administrator (Acting)
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Re: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Dear Ms. Burr:
On behalf of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), I am writing
to inform you of the further changes we have made to our articles and bylaws in order to
reflect emerging consensus about our governance and structure, and our own clearer
understanding of that consensus. We believe we are now fully prepared to fulfill the mission
identified in the White Paper -- to allow the management of Internet names, addresses and
protocols to be administered by a new, international, not-for-profit corporation that will be
transparent and fully accountable to communities it serves.Despite the many different views that have been expressed throughout this process, all of us
to inform you of the further changes we have made to our articles and bylaws in order to
reflect emerging consensus about our governance and structure, and our own clearer
understanding of that consensus. We believe we are now fully prepared to fulfill the mission
identified in the White Paper -- to allow the management of Internet names, addresses and
protocols to be administered by a new, international, not-for-profit corporation that will be
transparent and fully accountable to communities it serves.Despite the many different views that have been expressed throughout this process, all of us
have a common goal -- making this organization effective in its tasks and accountable to those
it serves. Clearly, it must make the proper trade-offs between efficient functioning and the
enjoyment of broad support from and responsiveness to its many constituencies. Although
we will inevitably make decisions that will displease some parties, we need all parties to
recognize our authority as valid and our decision-making as fair, objective and transparent.
We are continuing to refine our organizational documents and policies to accomplish these
goals, and the enclosed articles and bylaws reflect this. We still need to develop appropriate
implementing policies and procedures over the next months, and we believe these
organizational documents provide a sound foundation for this effort.
Furthermore, we pledge to respect the principles for which we were established, including
stability of the Internet and its operation, free and fair competition where feasible, private,
bottom-up coordination, and representation of and accountability to the global Internet
community.
Accordingly, we are now asking the U.S. Government to officially recognize ICANN, and
the enclosed documents, as the product of a broad if somewhat laborious consensus,
and to quickly negotiate the necessary transition agreement with the Corporation as
governed by these bylaws and further implementing changes outlined below. With genuine
consensus support and with the U.S. Government's recognition, we hope to move forward
without debilitating conflicts over ICANN governance while we deal with the more substantive
questions that lie ahead.
We understand that we have a constrained mission, as defined in the White Paper, our
articles and other documents:
establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of number blocks in the IP address
space;
oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
oversight of functions and policy related to the coordination of the Internet Domain Name
System, including policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level
domains could be added to the root system;
coordination of the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
universal connectivity on the Internet.
it serves. Clearly, it must make the proper trade-offs between efficient functioning and the
enjoyment of broad support from and responsiveness to its many constituencies. Although
we will inevitably make decisions that will displease some parties, we need all parties to
recognize our authority as valid and our decision-making as fair, objective and transparent.
We are continuing to refine our organizational documents and policies to accomplish these
goals, and the enclosed articles and bylaws reflect this. We still need to develop appropriate
implementing policies and procedures over the next months, and we believe these
organizational documents provide a sound foundation for this effort.
Furthermore, we pledge to respect the principles for which we were established, including
stability of the Internet and its operation, free and fair competition where feasible, private,
bottom-up coordination, and representation of and accountability to the global Internet
community.
Accordingly, we are now asking the U.S. Government to officially recognize ICANN, and
the enclosed documents, as the product of a broad if somewhat laborious consensus,
and to quickly negotiate the necessary transition agreement with the Corporation as
governed by these bylaws and further implementing changes outlined below. With genuine
consensus support and with the U.S. Government's recognition, we hope to move forward
without debilitating conflicts over ICANN governance while we deal with the more substantive
questions that lie ahead.
We understand that we have a constrained mission, as defined in the White Paper, our
articles and other documents:
establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of number blocks in the IP address
space;
oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system;
oversight of functions and policy related to the coordination of the Internet Domain Name
System, including policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level
domains could be added to the root system;
coordination of the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
universal connectivity on the Internet.
These tasks are not Internet "governance" in the broad sense: We are not governing the
Net or the people on it. But we are not merely a charity organization, managing our own
resources for our vision of the public benefit. Those who serve on the ICANN Board will
be stewards of public resources, and as such, their positions on important policy and
management issues need to be derived from public consensus, not simply the personal
views of the individuals who happen to serve on the Board at any given time. We recognize
that we need to respect the public's direct interest in how we manage these resources,
and in policies that affect them and the disposition of those resources and functions.
We have now revised our bylaws to better reflect this reality. Specifically, the changes
that I outline below have been made to more clearly guarantee openness and transparency,
along with the effectiveness of ICANN's coordination and management functions, in response
to the concerns raised by various constituencies within the Internet community and as
reflected in our conversations with you.
Net or the people on it. But we are not merely a charity organization, managing our own
resources for our vision of the public benefit. Those who serve on the ICANN Board will
be stewards of public resources, and as such, their positions on important policy and
management issues need to be derived from public consensus, not simply the personal
views of the individuals who happen to serve on the Board at any given time. We recognize
that we need to respect the public's direct interest in how we manage these resources,
and in policies that affect them and the disposition of those resources and functions.
We have now revised our bylaws to better reflect this reality. Specifically, the changes
that I outline below have been made to more clearly guarantee openness and transparency,
along with the effectiveness of ICANN's coordination and management functions, in response
to the concerns raised by various constituencies within the Internet community and as
reflected in our conversations with you.
Membership
We have committed to making ICANN a membership organization, with a Board of
Directors elected by at least four membership pools, including three Supporting Organizations
representing specific areas of interest/expertise (Domain names, Addresses, and Protocols),
and one At Large membership drawn from the entire Internet community. We will shortly call
for volunteers to serve on an advisory committee on membership that we hope will propose
several alternative approaches to membership criteria, rights and responsibilities. Obviously,
all proposals we consider will be subject to the extensive notice, comments and discussion
procedures of our bylaws. All parties affected by our decisions on membership will be able
to guide us in developing a membership structure that will make the Board truly representative
of and accountable to all of those -- big and small, individuals and organizations -- with an
interest in the resources we manage.
Directors elected by at least four membership pools, including three Supporting Organizations
representing specific areas of interest/expertise (Domain names, Addresses, and Protocols),
and one At Large membership drawn from the entire Internet community. We will shortly call
for volunteers to serve on an advisory committee on membership that we hope will propose
several alternative approaches to membership criteria, rights and responsibilities. Obviously,
all proposals we consider will be subject to the extensive notice, comments and discussion
procedures of our bylaws. All parties affected by our decisions on membership will be able
to guide us in developing a membership structure that will make the Board truly representative
of and accountable to all of those -- big and small, individuals and organizations -- with an
interest in the resources we manage.
Transparency
We will follow many specific procedures and policies designed to let the community understand
and have input into the decisions we make. As defined in the bylaws, we must observe a
variety of specific provisions for giving notice of all our meetings and of the decisions we will
be making during them -- and for collecting comments in advance.
Moreover, we will hold an open public meeting in conjunction with each regular Board meeting,
of which we plan about four annually around the world. At those meetings we will not only
solicit comments and input on policy issues then under consideration and other matters of
interest to the community, but we will also make our own opinions known and discuss them
interactively among ourselves and with the participants. In this way we hope to engage the
public in genuine mutual education rather than just a formal comment-and-response process.
We will follow the same approach at other open meetings between subsets of the Board and
the public at other times, as policy issues arise and as schedules and interest indicate.
While our formal, voting Board meetings will not be public, in order to foster frank and full
discussion, we will publish timely and complete minutes of our Board meetings reporting
the votes taken, the positions of the individual Board members on those votes, and the
arguments raised and the reasons behind the decisions taken.
and have input into the decisions we make. As defined in the bylaws, we must observe a
variety of specific provisions for giving notice of all our meetings and of the decisions we will
be making during them -- and for collecting comments in advance.
Moreover, we will hold an open public meeting in conjunction with each regular Board meeting,
of which we plan about four annually around the world. At those meetings we will not only
solicit comments and input on policy issues then under consideration and other matters of
interest to the community, but we will also make our own opinions known and discuss them
interactively among ourselves and with the participants. In this way we hope to engage the
public in genuine mutual education rather than just a formal comment-and-response process.
We will follow the same approach at other open meetings between subsets of the Board and
the public at other times, as policy issues arise and as schedules and interest indicate.
While our formal, voting Board meetings will not be public, in order to foster frank and full
discussion, we will publish timely and complete minutes of our Board meetings reporting
the votes taken, the positions of the individual Board members on those votes, and the
arguments raised and the reasons behind the decisions taken.
Independent Review
We recognize the need for a way to obtain recourse in the event that someone may believe
ICANN or its staff has broken our own bylaws or otherwise not followed the rules that we
have set forth for ourselves and for our successors. As with membership, we support this
concept, but we have not yet figured out how to implement it. Therefore, at this point we
have simply revised the bylaws to make mandatory the creation of some such process.
As in the case of membership, we will look to an Advisory Committee on Independent
Review with outside members to guide us in developing a mechanism for independent,
third-party review in such cases. As with the Advisory Committee on Membership, we will
shortly be putting out a call for volunteers to serve on this committee to develop proposals
for public review and consideration.
ICANN or its staff has broken our own bylaws or otherwise not followed the rules that we
have set forth for ourselves and for our successors. As with membership, we support this
concept, but we have not yet figured out how to implement it. Therefore, at this point we
have simply revised the bylaws to make mandatory the creation of some such process.
As in the case of membership, we will look to an Advisory Committee on Independent
Review with outside members to guide us in developing a mechanism for independent,
third-party review in such cases. As with the Advisory Committee on Membership, we will
shortly be putting out a call for volunteers to serve on this committee to develop proposals
for public review and consideration.
Certain Conflicts of Interest
We have a number of provisions in place to guard against conflicts of interest. Three new
ones are worthy of mention:
We have added a provision to the bylaws to require that in the case of votes on proposals
generated by a particular supporting organization, the votes of the Directors representing
that Supporting Organization may not be the deciding margin of a vote to adopt that proposal.
This will ensure that any such proposal that is adopted will have the support of the requisite
number of Directors required to adopt any such proposal without the votes of the Directors
affiliated with the Supporting Organization that made the proposal.
Second, we have added language concerning our funding mechanisms -- which we have
not yet determined -- making clear that any fees and charges that we do impose will be
subject to the full notice and comment provisions of the bylaws. Further, no funding
mechanism will be adopted that will, by its very nature, affect our policy decisions.
Third, we have removed the language in Article V, Section 9c that directs the Board to
determine minimal qualification of candidates for the Board. This provision was intended
to ensure geographic diversity, and the other changes we have made in this revision of the
bylaws make this language superfluous.
ones are worthy of mention:
We have added a provision to the bylaws to require that in the case of votes on proposals
generated by a particular supporting organization, the votes of the Directors representing
that Supporting Organization may not be the deciding margin of a vote to adopt that proposal.
This will ensure that any such proposal that is adopted will have the support of the requisite
number of Directors required to adopt any such proposal without the votes of the Directors
affiliated with the Supporting Organization that made the proposal.
Second, we have added language concerning our funding mechanisms -- which we have
not yet determined -- making clear that any fees and charges that we do impose will be
subject to the full notice and comment provisions of the bylaws. Further, no funding
mechanism will be adopted that will, by its very nature, affect our policy decisions.
Third, we have removed the language in Article V, Section 9c that directs the Board to
determine minimal qualification of candidates for the Board. This provision was intended
to ensure geographic diversity, and the other changes we have made in this revision of the
bylaws make this language superfluous.
Geographic Diversity
We have tried to ensure that the larger, permanent Board will be even more geographically
diverse than is the Initial Board. However, this goal is arguably inconsistent with an open,
unconstrained electoral process. Thus, we have been reluctant to impose specific
requirements for geographic representation ahead of the process of determining membership
and election criteria, which will be the subject of deliberations by the Advisory Committee on
Membership. Nonetheless, given the continued expressions of concern on this subject,
we have revised the bylaws to further guarantee geographic diversity in two respects:
by requiring the permanent Board have at least one representative from each geographic
region, and by requiring that no more than half of the directors elected by the Supporting
Organizations in the aggregate shall be citizens of any single geographic region.
The Advisory Committee on Membership will thus be required to take account of these
provisions in its recommendations relating to election procedures and policies.
In addition, we have made some minor changes to the specifics of some other bylaws,
including the insertion of some general language in the Articles of Incorporation making
it clear that ICANN will comply with relevant and applicable international and local law;
tightening the provisions under which the Board can consider certain matters confidential
by requiring a three-fourths vote of the Directors present to do so; a small revision of Article
XI, Section 2, of the bylaws deleting the word "rights" as potentially misleading and in any
event unnecessary; and the addition of language making it clear that any consideration of
changes in the countries included in geographic regions or other matters relating to
geographic diversity will take into account the evolution of the Internet.
diverse than is the Initial Board. However, this goal is arguably inconsistent with an open,
unconstrained electoral process. Thus, we have been reluctant to impose specific
requirements for geographic representation ahead of the process of determining membership
and election criteria, which will be the subject of deliberations by the Advisory Committee on
Membership. Nonetheless, given the continued expressions of concern on this subject,
we have revised the bylaws to further guarantee geographic diversity in two respects:
by requiring the permanent Board have at least one representative from each geographic
region, and by requiring that no more than half of the directors elected by the Supporting
Organizations in the aggregate shall be citizens of any single geographic region.
The Advisory Committee on Membership will thus be required to take account of these
provisions in its recommendations relating to election procedures and policies.
In addition, we have made some minor changes to the specifics of some other bylaws,
including the insertion of some general language in the Articles of Incorporation making
it clear that ICANN will comply with relevant and applicable international and local law;
tightening the provisions under which the Board can consider certain matters confidential
by requiring a three-fourths vote of the Directors present to do so; a small revision of Article
XI, Section 2, of the bylaws deleting the word "rights" as potentially misleading and in any
event unnecessary; and the addition of language making it clear that any consideration of
changes in the countries included in geographic regions or other matters relating to
geographic diversity will take into account the evolution of the Internet.
Conclusion
Of course, the Board and I would be happy to discuss any of these changes and the reasons
behind them with you and your colleagues, or with any parties affected, but we hope that this
letter explains them clearly. We will be in touch with you shortly to discuss negotiation of the
transition agreement. Thank you for your patience during this process!
Yours sincerely,
behind them with you and your colleagues, or with any parties affected, but we hope that this
letter explains them clearly. We will be in touch with you shortly to discuss negotiation of the
transition agreement. Thank you for your patience during this process!
Yours sincerely,
Esther Dyson
Interim Chairman
On Behalf of the ICANN Board
Interim Chairman
On Behalf of the ICANN Board
Please send comments on this web site to: webmaster@icann.org
Page Updated 23-November-98.
 ){kind=link}
0 Comments