the root of all evil n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Root of All Evil? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Root of All Evil?

The Root of All Evil?

120 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The Root of All Evil?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Root of All Evil? A.Michael Froomkin Professor, U.Miami School of Law

  2. Two stories • (1) The classic story: chokepoints, taxes and controls • (2) The real story: chaos and adhocracy • The second story is a problem in its own right. • It also makes it impossible to disprove the first.

  3. An Internet “Choke Point”? • If your TLD is not in the root you are essentially invisible • Network effects • Inertia • Changing is ‘fiddly’ or controlled by someone else upstream from you • All this can (and probably will) change

  4. (Ab)use of the Root • How • Flow-down terms of service • Legal claims of ownership in names, right to list TLDs or SLDs • What • Who gets to be seen • Anti-cybsersquatting, anti-spam rules • Privacy rules • Content controls (filters?)

  5. Who Controls the Root? • Today: U.S. Commerce Department • Some issues as to legal authority • Not many issues as to power: NSI accepts that Commerce controls entry in root, entry of new TLDs • Disputes with NSI as to “ownership” of data relating to registrations

  6. Enter ICANN • “Virgin Birth”? • “Original sin”? • Does ICANN control the root today? NO. Commerce does. • Commerce says it intends to cede control to ICANN--but it is NOT required to • ICANN acts as if it is in control

  7. Suppose ICANN Controls the Root • Two cultures: Engineering & Lawyer • Engineer: focus on results (“Does it float?”) • Laywer: uses Holmes’ “bad man” approach - ask not what is likely; ask what is possible (“How easily does it get out of control?”) • Lawyers Care about process • Lawyers are nasty suspicious people • Constitutions are written by lawyers

  8. Bad Things? • “Taxes” on domain names & IP allocations • Conditions on the use of resources • Contractual model is highly insulated from review • First UDP (includes USE restrictions now); then privacy; then… • Some of these might be great rules • Some might not • Where there is not trust you need process

  9. The Real Evil: A Really Lousy Governance Model • Governments are a product of a long evolution. They have rules... • On representation (feedback control) • Notice • Voting • On self-dealing (data corruption) • On procedure (protocols) • On external checks (boundry conditions) • Due process; even lawsuits

  10. The ICANN Structure Is Seriously Defective • “With all due respect … we are less interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving forward.” • The procedure IS the real work at this stage • Like software, if you start with a bad architecture, you pay for it downstream

  11. Sample Defects • Byzantine structure • Legitimation crisis • Creation, Funding, Spending • Expectation / outcome mis-match • Flawed representational structures • That manipulable “consensus” • “The ICANN board does not "see a global consensus demanding that ICANN hold all its meetings in public."

  12. ICANN: Rulemaking adhocracy • Notice, formality, regularity, consensus issues • Timing • Role of working groups • Voting rules • Bylaws conflicts

  13. “All Those Lawyers Going on About Rules” • You can run a system on trust - but only so long as the trust is there. • Rules protect people. • Notice • Conflict of interest • Separation of powers • They define the conditions for participation. • They make deciders jump through hoops they’d rather avoid.

  14. Internet Participation in ICANN (Not?) • Physical attendance at meetings seems critical • The medium has not been used well • With the honorable exception of E.Dyson, the Board is invisible • If you participate virtually, with delays, written rules are ever-more important

  15. Making Participation Meaningful • Participation is a good in itself • More input may make better decisions • It’s the right thing to do • Participation is an instrumental good • Creates visible legitimacy • Protects decisions against 3rd party challenges

  16. What’s the Answer? • If this is a political problem then it requires a political solution. • Of course, if it’s a technical problem it needs a… Al Gore? Sec. Daley? Jeb Bush? Bill Bradley?

  17. A Technical Solution? • Unlike standards debates in that it is much harder to drive the market by making a better proprietary standard • Like standards debate in that a new technology can make old standards irrelevant

  18. Internal Reform? • Model One: Retrofit • Bill of Rights? • Entrenched Promises not to do some things? • Could address many/most “Root of Evil” concerns • Model Two: Reboot • We can learn from this (are these the Articles of Confederation?) • Need a better requirements sheet • Must forefront end-user role