[governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy

[Nicolas Adam]

I got to tell you that at my university (and the ones around), most 
"progressive" students (and aren't we almost all progressive) that hears 
about ICANN are ready to throw it under the bus for its "private" 
governance model (read: the participation ― and presumed domination ―of 
commercial entities in the governance mechanisms).

I'm as progressive as one can hope to be ― or so I am told by 
conservatives ― but have always found a certain attachment to its model, 
and want to see it succeed. This conflict is, btw, why I joined this 
group. I couldn't share everyone's opinion that this was such a bad idea 
to begin with (Lauren's, of NNSquad, is very indicative of the 
learned-yet-popular wisdom on ICANN). Sure, when I was reading Rony & 
Rony and Prof. Mueller's book some time ago, I was rooting for IFWP (and 
Postel to stick to its guns re:root redirection) but in the end ― apart 
from the *foundation issue* which I will never be happy with until 
resolved ― I now root for ICANN to be all it can be. I noticed the puns. 
They were unintended.

So, I don't know if this glitch is such an opportunity to reinvent (I 
think not), but we should certainly be ready for when such an 
opportunity is taken on by others and brought down on us by others.

It is funny and interesting in a way, that Milton would probably (I 
don't want to speak on his behalf, but such is my impression) not 
approve of IFWP-like moves (or was it BWG? can't remember) to try to 
clarify and explicitly settle the foundational attributes of IANA 
"contracts" and severe all ties to US's pretensions.

The funny part is that RTR is indubitably responsible for attracting at 
least some people into ICANN and perhaps NCSG, and I'm sure that many 
such people will come into ICANN with the pro rfc-attributed (or 
community-attributed) iana contract preferences. The interesting part is 
that I guess it's a testament to how thoroughly interesting and 
relatively objective (not a big believer in the possibility of this one) 
Milton's RTR was. It made me like ICANN more than I disliked its 
"private" governance mechanisms.

One (of the many) threat to ICANN's system would be that progressive 
people like the ones that are here stop believing that they can matter 
sometimes, and if that happens, if the balance seems *irredeemably* 
skewed towards one of the many commercial worldviews, then nothing but 
apathy could rein in the legitimacy backlash. Apathy is strong, but you 
can't count on it forever. That goes to the internal governance model, 
but I don't have a ready-made reinvention opinion on this complex subject.

Another threat is directly related to ICANN's (IANA's, rather) 
foundation. Those are complex social problems with complex ramifications 
and distribution of forces, and as a practical matter, I can understand 
people not wanting to jump into them. But, like I said, someone else 
will most likely make us jump, so its not too early to start thinking 
about it.

Something to think about: I'm sure when you Professors out there talk 
about the complex organizational history of the Internet, you notice 
right away how ICANN's polical capital is small when compared to, say, 
IETF. Yet IETF is also "private" governance!

There are reasons for this difference in symbolic capital, and I would 
argue that the foundation issue is paramount amongst them.

My provisional take to fix this low symbolic capital in two easy steps:

1- fix foundation/severe ties to NTIA

2- bring back at-large election

[3-do no evil!]

Nicolas



On 4/21/2012 9:56 AM, Mark Leiser wrote:
> As a bit of a politics junkie myself, I have to say I disagree with 
> the learned Professor Mueller's metaphor.
>
> It is arguable that the US Capitol building is not home to one of the 
> world's "first democracies"; however, for arguments sake, lets say it 
> is...
>
> The question should be framed as follows, "if the Capitol building 
> collapses due to incompetent construction, and//in the aftermath/, the 
> opportunity/ presents itself to re-think the nature of democracy, then 
> should we? And if so, then what changes should we bring about?"
>
> The same should apply to ICANN and what is going on now.
>
>
> Mark R. Leiser
> Phd Student
> School of Law
> Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
> Room 709, Level 7,
> Graham Hills Building
> 50 George St, G1 1QE
> University of Strathclyde
> Glasgow, Scotland.
> Email: mark.leiser at gmail.com <mailto:mark.leiser at gmail.com>
> Phone: +447825777686
>
> The University of Strathclyde is a Charitable Body, Registered in 
> Scotland, Number SCO15263
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Carlos
>
>     Neither of us is saying it's not a big mess that won't have to be
>     cleaned up.  Just that it's not obvious it requires a new round of
>     organizational reinvention navel gazing at this particular juncture.
>
>     But I'm glad you think do anything merrily!
>
>     BD
>
>     PS:  Please, Milton is not a political scientist, he just plays
>     one.  We like states (not of nature).   He's actually a former art
>     student gone bad, i.e. degree in communication.
>
>     On Apr 21, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>     > Wow, Milton, this is really amazing. This is not a simple
>     > "implementation mistake". This involved serious breach of privacy of
>     > expensive applications which are part of investment strategies by
>     > business organizations in most cases. There is an obvious liability
>     > issue here involved. It cannot be dismissed as just "a computer form
>     > that did not work as expected", and cannot be left in the hands
>     of the
>     > same staff which caused the problem. And you are not a computer
>     > scientist, you are a political scientist as far as I recall, which
>     > surprises me even more.
>     >
>     > And Bill Drake merrily embarks on the dismissing argument, what
>     is going
>     > on with you people? :(
>     >
>     > --c.a.
>     >
>     > On 04/21/2012 03:54 AM, William Drake wrote:
>     >> I agree.  The governance model has issues, but this is a separate
>     >> matter.  We've just gone through the whole GNSO restructuring,
>     >> ramping up the AoC process, etc.  ICANN doesn't need and probably
>     >> couldn't handle another extended bout of navel-gazing debate about
>     >> reinvention right now.  It needs to let the dust settle for awhile,
>     >> get new leadership in place, get new gTLDs up and running, sort out
>     >> IANA, advance the "internationalization" and outreach efforts, etc.
>     >> Plenty on the plate already.
>     >>
>     >> I can't imagine that the business folks that are laying out big
>     cash
>     >> and maneuvering around new names aren't already screaming about the
>     >> screw up, or that the management won't be compelled to explain what
>     >> happened and assure everyone it hasn't skewed the application
>     process
>     >> for/against anyone.  If there's going to a joint request for info
>     >> from SO/AC chairs or whatever, fine, but it's not obvious to me
>     NCSG
>     >> needs to spend a bunch of cycles on this unless folks are
>     looking for
>     >> something to do.
>     >>
>     >> Bill
>     >>
>     >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> I am not sure I agree with the premise that an implementation
>     >>> mistake by the staff constitutes grounds for completely
>     reinventing
>     >>> and rethinking ICANN. Can someone explain the logic of that to me?
>     >>> For example, if the Capitol building of one of the world's first
>     >>> democracies, e.g., the USA, had collapsed due to incompetent
>     >>> construction, would it mean that we should re-think the nature of
>     >>> democracy?
>     >>>
>     >>> I think they need to fix the mistake, fire those responsible, and
>     >>> move on.
>     >>>
>     >>> The root of the problem, to my mind, is not the governance model
>     >>> but, in this order: a) management problems; b) the rube
>     >>> Goldberg-like complexity of the new TLD program, and c) the more
>     >>> than a decade-long delay in accepting a policy, which means
>     that we
>     >>> are dealing with a sudden flood of 1000+ applications rather
>     than a
>     >>> steady trickle of 10 or so a year, and which, like b), is a
>     product
>     >>> of the intense politics swirling around the program.
>     >>>
>     >>> Remember that this has never been done before.
>     >>>
>     >>>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> ICANN needs to rethink and reorganize itself!
>     >>>>
>     >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120421/5b95d591/attachment-0001.html>