[ga] The Evasion of Dialogue, and Loss of Trust
Title: Help I thought I'd try to post some honest realities to this forum.
No doubt I'll be criticised or ignored by some - but that's not an issue,
because I have no interests or anything to gain or lose. I'm an outsider to
these debates, and I'm of no interest. Only the issues ARE of interest, because
the internet has become a worldwide resource with the potential to benefit so
many ordinary people if administered with honesty and true intent.
To be honest, I find it rather weird and bizarre, looking in from the
outside, and spectating on so many squabbles, and what I'd call the luxury of
"rich man's" arguments. The vast majority of the poor and excluded world inhabit
a different universe. So much that gets posted on this (and other) forums is
petty and self-justifying and just goes on and on.
I became drawn into the issues of DNS administration entirely by chance,
because I wanted to develop a few websites, and encountered the problems of the
.info roll-out, which got in the way of my private plans and objectives. I can
honestly say that 18 months ago I had never even heard of ICANN (and that
remains the case for the vast majority of ordinary people on our planet).
When I encountered failures in the mechanisms of the .info
ICANN/Registry/Registrar agreements, I had a simple trust that I could turn to
ICANN for help, advice, action, and intervention.
Like many before and after, I had to undergo the harsh dawning realisation
that ICANN was not a simple benevolent organisation, run for the benefit of all
mankind, but a complex mixture of personalities and power-groups, built
upon a US govt mandate, and pursuing goals that were separate from the
simplicities of user-interests.
In particular, like many others, I had to undergo the disillusionment that
came from trusting people like Vint Cerf and then finding in terms of experience
that the ICANN organisation he fronted was neither open, transparent, nor
representative of ordinary people.
This disillusionment and profound disappointment grew, as I carried out an
analysis of the .info fiasco (which, in some small way, has been acknowledged as
informative and demonstrative of deeper problems). Disappointment, not because
Afilias itself seemed to disregard consumer concerns, but because this
abandonment of consumer concerns demonstrated the failure of ICANN's registry
and registrar agreements, and ICANN's unwillingness to put user interests before
the vested interests of registrars who were in alarming cases corrupt and
abusive.
The disillusionment for me came when, with a sense of trust, I repeatedly
wrote to people like Vint and Stuart and Dan H, and found myself ignored and the
issues evaded. This was one of the most profound culture shocks of my life,
because I was naieve and worked in care industries all my life, and had no real
understanding of corporate power and what that meant.
I knew, from the inside of my specific studies and analysis of a single
issue (.info), that ICANN themselves KNEW the corruption that had been allowed
to take place (at the expense of consumers) and the failure of their own
inadequate agreements. I KNEW that they KNEW. But I also knew that they totally
evaded my questions, my pleas, my request for guidance, my search for
definition. They avoided my "whistle-blowing" by sending enigmatic one-line
responses like "this looks a bit worrying" or (more often) just failed to
acknowledge my mail at all.
It was as if, by speaking the plain truth with no vested interests, I was a
problem that had to be managed into non-existence. In truth, I was a very small
problem on their big stage, because I was so marginal and unknown (and still
am!).
However, the issues I flagged up have been raised increasingly by others.
They centre on : the need for "teeth" and "sanctions" for ICANN to actually
implement their agreements, since self-regulation leads to (some) registrar
abuse and the desertion of the consumer. They centre on : the need for much more
tightly defined agreements that leave registrars with less leeway to abuse
mechanisms (no-one in the wake of .info and .biz can say the ICANN agreements
have managed to control corrupt registrars or protect ordinary consumers). They
centre on : the obvious inadequacy of letting registrars determine their own
conduct, when "best practices" need to be mandatory and a condition of
accreditation. They centre on : the conflicts of interest that exist where the
registrar and registry community have disproportionate executive influence and
power within ICANN (combined with financial influence) which can really only be
addressed if these constituencies are reduced to merely "advisory" roles and are
excluded from executive authority. They centre on : the need for the millions
upon millions of ordinary internet users to be truly and powerfully represented
on the ICANN board. They centre on : above all, the opaque dealings of ICANN
(which even thwart some of their own directors) but which more importantly
manifests itself in a lack of openness and dialogue with the public, the
evasion of real concerns, the hidden pursuit of power, the arbitrary power to
select registries, the failure to be accountable. Of all these things, the
failure of ICANN to engage in honest dialogue seems to me to be the most telling
demonstartion of a loss of integrity.
So when further serious concerns emerged in the subsequent .biz 2B names
release, I finally listed 14 honest and serious questions which I personally
sent to Dan Halloran, as well as posting publicly. Once again,
registry/registrar agreements had been so loose and flimsy that rogue registrars
had ridden roughshod through them, to the further disadvantage of the public
ICANN should be serving. The existence of "exclusive registrar queues" (short
queues closed to the public and designed to hijack best names for a friend,
partner or favoured client) in the .biz 2B set a serious precedent for the
imminent .info Landrush 2, and showed that the "fair distribution of domain
names on equal terms" could not take place. I combined my (frankly) very
detailed analysis of .info and .biz name distribution, and posed 14 serious and
fair and realistic questions to Dan Halloran. I did this on behalf of thousands
like myself who felt these deserved (at least) to be responded to. Two weeks
later, Dan Halloran has not even bothered to acknowledge my letter.
OK - I'm a complete nobody (and proud of it... I'd rather be aligned with
the disenfranchised and the poor majority). But I tell you this : it just
demonstrates to me how ICANN evades, and wriggles, and consciously avoids
dialogue except on its own terms, when it purports to work for the public
interest.
Now turn to the GA motion for a re-bid and how can it come as any surprise
that a significant majority of those who voted wanted ICANN to be wholly
re-structured, possibly by being replaced?
It's no good arguing that there was a second motion which got even more
votes. If a swindler defrauded a poor person of their life savings, and 70% of
people thought they should get a life sentence, and 80% thought they should at
least get 10 years in prison and should change their ways... what would it tell
you? What is the majority view? The first view (the more severe one) is actually
the majority view because it is obvious to anyone with commonsense that an
established majority want the severe option, but if they couldn't get that
they'd still argue for the less severe sentence and vote for that. A further 10%
would also come on board for that soft sentence, but that wouldn't equal
"consensus". Since a clear majority already voted for the severe option, to deny
this (just because they also voted for the soft option) would be a rejection of
democracy.
I'd like to ask the election monitors (in the interests of clarity): how
many people voted for both motion 1 AND motion 2? This would not require the
disclosure of personal votes, but would clarify things.
Please - I FORMALLY REQUEST the disclosure of these statistics,
because they are in the public interest of the GA to properly weigh what you
call "consensus".
Now I said at the outset that I'd try to post some honest realities. It's
not a matter of partisanship, but a matter of the interests of the internet
public as a whole (the vast majority of whom are those unrepresented ordinary
users now to be excluded from the ICANN board).
Therefore I will concede this: the GA and its votes are NOT
representative, because the sample is too small. What is needed is a user-group
consisting of millions, and election mechanisms which (if not perfect) more
truly express the opinions of the internet public worldwide.
Such a user-group should NOT be generated from within ICANN (because ICANN
in its present structure is widely midtrusted). And such a user-group
should not limit its scope to ICANN's narrow technical mission (because that
won't attract millions). Nevertheless, the internet public have a right to
proper representation - indeed a controlling representation - on the ICANN
board.
I said that Jamie Love's motion cannot be taken as "representative". But it
can be taken as "indicative". Indicative of an organisation which is mistrusted
by many serious-minded people with a combination of experience and expertise.
Indicative of the loss of faith and integrity sustained by the ICANN
leadership for whom this is, at least, a shaming repudiation. But to me, it
is just a further indication of what, quite privately, came to be my own
disappointment and disillusionment. It shows me that many people like myself
have been shocked by the lack of openness, the evasion of dialogue, the
abandonment of the consumer through inept and non-implemented agreements. It
confirms my own (unsought) experiences of opaque "closed" agendas, and the
staggering discourtesies and marginalisation encountered at the hands of
people who no longer have my trust.
Clearly they no longer have the trust of the voting members of the
GA.
But much more importantly, this internet, this force for good in a troubled
world, is far too important to be managed like a private fiefdom. Total trust,
total openness is a pre-requisite.
That trust and that openness does not exist.
Richard Henderson
|