[governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy

[Dan Krimm]

I have to admit I'm ambivalent about ICANN.  It was suggested earlier that
all alternative IG options are worse, but I'm really not so sure.

The idea that you offer a voice to all stakeholders is a good one.  The
idea that you aim for good faith consensus is a good one.  But in
practice, not all stakeholders have equal capacity to engage the process,
and many stakeholders engage the process is something less than good faith
(even if they play-act at having good faith).

I'm definitely not in favor of Vint returning.  I'm not exceptionally
impressed with his record at Google, for example.  He's not a godhead by
any means.  He's not a leader on principle by nature, so it seems.

My gut feeling is that as long as IG wasn't such a big deal, nobody
bothered to pay much attention to it because it didn't seem as if much was
at stake, except for a few specialized players that tangled from the
get-go, so far as I know.  So a RC-RC process borrowed from IETF could
limp along as if it wasn't in fundamental trouble, because after all, who
cares.

Now that the stakes are getting increasingly higher (more money, more
impacts on power and control), the faults in the original architecture
seem to be breaking open, and those who are intent on having their way are
using ad hoc tactics to undermine whatever good faith culture might have
been at large, whether deeply or just on the surface.

Consensus only works when all parties place a common identity above
individual differences.  That is, when the "best alternative to negotiated
agreement" (BATNA) is worse than the agreement at hand.  If not,
eventually someone walks away from the table, and that is what this ad hoc
stuff is all about: walking away from the table.

My sense is that this will only get worse over time.

That said,I think it would probably be a good thing if there were time to
get a values/mechanisms discussion together.  Especially the mechanisms
part.  The current governance structure of ICANN is apparently not very
effective in the long run.  But part of the problem is that it doesn't
*really* exist in isolation from other public institutions (governments). 
It has avoided accountability through public institutions for some time,
but its own internal accountability structures ultimately do not account
to all stakeholders, because not all stakeholders are equally represented
by stakeholders groups, and there are structural reasons why this is not
an easy thing to fix (collective action problem, unequal distribution of
resources).

The difficulties in being a QUANGO are coming home to roost, I think.  I
really don't know if this circle can be squared.

If some other architecture can be imagined, maybe that could help.  But
many of the problems inside ICANN originate outside ICANN (though it may
not have been well designed to address those problems).

The first principle of any rejiggered ICANN structure would be to start by
acknowledging those forces outside ICANN that inevitably and increasingly
will impact ICANN's operations and policies, and to make sure that any new
architecture accounts for those forces.

It's not as easy as it looked a decade ago, is it.  It won't get any
easier, I think.  Prepare for systematic imperfection, because perfection
is not an option, any more than in any other representative system of
governance.  You have to decide which imperfections are more or less
tolerable, and design the governance structure to allow the tolerable ones
and to expunge the intolerable ones.

Don't think that vested interests will make that easy, though.  They'll
fight it tooth and nail, because they often thrive on the intolerable
imperfections.

Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Wed, April 18, 2012 6:03 pm, klaus.stoll wrote:
> Friends,
>
> we need to get back to what it is all about. We need to remind ourselves
> and
> ICANN that it is a innovative concept of self governance and transparency.
> We need to remember that the Internet changed everything and that it gave
> itself a governance structure that is worthy of its revolutionary nature
> and
> that this is something worth "fighting" for.
>
> I was thinking tonight: Why did I get involved in ICANN? Because people
> like
> Carlos Afonso in their words and deeds and day to day integrity and
> honorable behavior showed me that besides all the problems, ICANN is the
> way
> to go.
>
> Has the Internet and the commercial and political interests that are
> associated with it become to much to handle for ICANN? The answer is
> simply:
> Only if ICANN has lost his believe into the values and mechanisms it gave
> itself and if ICANN has lost the ability for internal reform and renewal.
>
> ICANN needs to rethink and reorganize itself!
>
> My proposal is that there is a special ICANN meeting called in which
> nothing
> else but ICANNs mission and vision and the way this is translated into
> action today is discussed.
>
> I know that this is not the simple answer, I know it will cause a lot of
> arguments and fights, but in the end it might be worth doing.
>
> Some of you might know that I am a theologian by trade so this should not
> come as a surprise, even if it sounds mad. Synods are traditionally the
> answer of the Christian churches to respond to internal and external
> challenges, to renew itself and to respond to a changing world.  We need a
> ICANN synod, not regular ICANN business meetings where we talk ourselves
> deeper and deeper into trouble without resolving anything.
>
> We need a new platform from which ICANN can respond to the challenges it
> faces, the present system does not work any more.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
> PS: Dare I say it? "Vint come back, all is forgiven!"
>
> -----Original Message-----:
> From: Carlos A. Afonso
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:14 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the
> Secrecy
>
> I agree, Alan, and this investigator needs to be a systems specialist
> and truly independent of board and staff.
>
> I also agree with Maria that we should do whatever we can reasonably to,
> how to say it, help protect Icann from itself?
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 04/18/2012 06:24 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> Indeed, ICANN needs to self-reboot... or else it will have to be
>> reinvented... a Multi-stakeholder bottom up process and institution like
>> ICANN strives for is the only sane alternative to an international
>> government-driven... given the increasing number of rogue or incompetent
>> governments we have to put up with, the alternatives are kafkaesque!!!
>>
>> The Board needs to appoint an independant investigator with full powers
>> to
>> get to the bottom of this. This is the priority of priorities for ICANN
>> and
>> a comprehensive independant report must be tabled before Prague.
>>
>> Alain
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, klaus.stoll
>> <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Friends
>>>
>>> Unfortunately all of the below is true. Many questions but little
>>> answers.
>>> It seems to me the time has come to start a comprehensive re-thinking
>>> and
>>> re-planning process. If things go on as they are the damage will
>>> increase
>>> and increase. ICANN is not perfect, ICANN has a lot of problems, ICANN
>>> at
>>> times is a madhouse of interests and egos, BUT ICANN is the best system
>>> for
>>> Internet Governance we have, we should be proud for the way it worked
>>> so
>>> well so far, everything else is even worse. Now it seems that ICANN is
>>> under real pressure we need to work twice as hard to protect ICANN and
>>> at
>>> he same time think twice as hard about possible solutions. Now is the
>>> time
>>> for self-confidence and innovation, everything else is counter
>>> productive.
>>> Thinking back over the years we need to look where things started to
>>> get
>>> seriously wrong and correct the basic mistakes made. Any suggestions
>>> where
>>> it all went wrong?
>>>
>>> Does anybody know where the reset button is on that one?
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:18 PM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the
>>> Secrecy
>>>
>>>
>>> Imram pretty much summarizes the extension of the incredible blunder,
>>> especially in its liability aspects.
>>>
>>> At a minimum ICANN will need to hire independent specialist auditors to
>>> do a full check on the damage and on who has been affected (although I
>>> do not believe in the tale that just a few have been affected). But
>>> these auditors would be chosen by staff, so the blunder might rise to
>>> new levels. Could the applicants participate in this choice?
>>>
>>> This is going to escalate, the question now is how far it will go.
>>>
>>> What should NCSG do about it? I frankly do not know what to propose
>>> right now. The IOC/RC process, the refusal by the NTIA to renew the
>>> IANA
>>> contract, and now this incredible TAS blunder, all in a few months...
>>> it
>>> seems ICANN is trying hard to burn itself out.
>>>
>>> I wonder who are the "four candidates" for the post of Beck Rodstrom
>>> (sic on purpose :)), the brave individuals who wish to come to ICANN
>>> and
>>> try and clean up this mess?
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the
>>> Secrecy
>>> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,**Imran Ahmed Shah <
>>> ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org**>
>>> CC: Imran @IGFPak.org <imran at igfpak.org>
>>>
>>> Dear
>>> All,
>>> Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet layers was the prime
>>> responsibility of the ICANN, but the organization
>>> couldn't protect/ secure its latest online application submission
>>> system
>>> of new
>>> gTLDs (TAS). Would it be fair to say the best practices were not
>>> followed
>>> to
>>> design the system which was built to keep the information secure,
>>> confidential
>>> and protected. This
>>> application supported the collection of 850+ applications and over
>>> $150m
>>> funds.
>>>
>>> ICANN
>>> has been informed about this the glitch on 19th but ICANN did not taken
>>> it
>>> seriously, decision making took about 23 days.
>>> ICANN took its TAS Application
>>> offline on 12th April which was the last date when it has to be closed
>>> automatically. ICANN has its plan to reopen this TAS system to the
>>> public that
>>> mean Expansion the 90days window by extension of closing
>>> date.
>>> "We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system
>>> software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some other
>>> users' file names and user names in certain scenarios."
>>>
>>> Technically it was necessary to use the secure method
>>> and variables should not be displayed in the URL. According to the
>>> policy the
>>> information of the applicants will not be disclosed however, the
>>> applicant name
>>> and the applied for string has to publically announced at a later
>>> stage.
>>> Many of them may have lost their
>>> secrecy& confidentiality. It is next to impossible to discover that who
>>> is
>>> the beneficiary and who is the looser? However, it will raise the
>>> conflicts
>>> and bidding values.
>>> In
>>> short ICANN has lost its trust for maintaining the confidentiality,
>>> Integrity and Information Security. ICANN has to re-define its policy
>>> or
>>> call public comments that how to deal with this scenario.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>