How ICANN pressures 'net engineers to give it behind-the-scenes control of the web Behind-the-scenes efforts by ICANN's lawyers to force the internet community to grant it perpetual control of critical internet functions have been exposed. Citing a cultural default of openness and transparency, negotiation teams from both the regional internet registries (RIRs) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) …
This post has been deleted by its author
Incredibly, ICANN appears adamant that the US Department of Commerce and Congress will give California-based ICANN that role forever – despite both institutions having made statements that would strongly suggest otherwise.
Why is that so hard to disbelieve? Look that all the hoops SpaceX and the other upstarts have had to jump through just to get a few launches from NASA. The bureaucracy likes "known" suppliers and contractors. They like a familiar face when it's time for negotiations, a free lunch, or brown envelope. They don't like change. Thus... ICANN has a pretty good shot at owning the cash cow that is the IANA contract (with perks) forever. I don't see Lockheed or Boeing being shut out of doing space launches even though they cost more. The system is what it is and the only way change will come about is from someplace other than the center of power.
While I would't trust the ICANN establishment any further than I can throw one of their lawyers (which isn't very far at all), I do trust the IETF to exercise the cancellation clause in its fundamental agreement with ICANN if necessary. I also trust the various Regional Internet Registries to do the same thing. It's less clear that there is anyone to similarly blow the bolts for the top-level domain system, but I can't really imagine anyone (including the US Department of Commerce) agreeing to a new regime in which there was no cancellation clause. So I think this is just smoke and mirrors from the ICANN side, designed to create panic and outrage when neither is needed.
Sorry for the necro-post, but...
It is hard to imagine how this is not negotiating in bad faith. That bad faith makes ICANN a non-candidate in my opinion.
OTH -- the fact that we have an abusive agent in charge lends greater legitimacy to the notion that these functions should be entirely separate from the control of any central organization and should be distributed among the Internet population at large. Perhaps their outrageous hubris will trigger a real change.
The current shabby state of the Internet helps to keep monopolists in power, creates multiple single points of failure (in that 'authorities' can shut down big chunks of the Internet), intrinsically incurable security vulnerabilities and an enormous attack surface.
I repudiate the notion that entities like the U.S. government have a legitimate claim to control over the global Internet.
From a security point of, view, you should not trust any single entity with control. No bank puts access to the vault under the sole control of one unsupervised individual -- not for long, anyway.
The existing set of rules for governance are so far beyond the pale it is hard to have a meaningful discussion about it.
I agree completely with the author of the article and am thankful that the RIRs and IETF have helped transparency by shining light on negotiations. Without a complete change in ICANN and IANA management, there must be a failsafe approach for the community to move the IANA functions elsewhere. All the increased accountability mechanisms in the world cannot substitute for trusted individuals that have always been a part of and answered to the community.
CWG recommendations are too weak here. The IANA function cannot be a wholly owned subsidiary. It must be a completely separate pre-funded 501c3 with a separate board. Otherwise, it shall still be subject to ICANN internal politics such as the currently relentless efforts behind gtlds to the exclusion of all other efforts. I understand some IANA efforts have been put on hold due to gtld efforts when they should instead be running on a completely separate track to support the community.
I am perplexed, given the history of duplicity, non-transparent dealings regarding IANA functions, new gtlds and the failures in both (see verisign technical note) why the public, congress and NTIA are even considering transitioning IANA functions to ICANN this year. Why rush after all these years? Sure, I understand the international and party politics but that is just a matter of education and patience. Another reason not to rush: I understand the “control button” on changes to the root zone will still remain under contract between the US government and verisign at least for a short time.
ICANN's current approach to IANA is to hide all faults, halt all improvements, and hope to get the IANA contract. This instead of an honest accounting of the usual mistakes and necessary improvements expected from such an operation – and regularly working with the community to address them. If a system looks perfect, we all know something is wrong (why are SOC2 IANA audit details not shared with the relying party – the public?).
The current structure inside ICANN created by Atallah and Chehade is one of the least transparent and least experienced I have seen. They continue to lie to or buy silence and allegiance from members of the community and board. This has created a tight cluby echo chamber at the higher levels that insulates everyone from the truth that staff and a few others like this author know about. The examples of legal maneuvering described by the author are just the tip of the iceberg and the upheavals within.
Speaking of staff. Feedback and comments from the most important and critical members is still missing in this process – that is comments from staff. Unfortunately, more examples of poor ICANN management have demonstrated they cannot be trusted even at the highest levels resulting only in retaliation against those that seek to improve accountability through constructive criticism. At some levels basic budgetary controls are used to bring lieutenants in line. This has created a culture of fear within ICANN which matches the circle wagons and fire the messenger mentality at the top. Repeated requests for a whistle blower protection clause have fallen on deaf ears. This is not what I expect from a non-profit organization.
Once this all becomes evident as it is likely to do, it would be a shame to see ICANN listed as a failed attempt at multistakeholderism in the history books. The lack of public trust also opens up the possibility of ITU capture of the IANA functions again. There is no international statutory authority giving ICANN or NTIA any control over names, number, or protocols. It has only been trust from the community. Technically managing these is not so difficult. Lying to this very community and mismanaging IANA functions is exactly what will make the multistakeholder experiment fail.
ICANN and NTIA have little to hide and should put all their cards on the table and start the process of rebuilding all the lost trust. All the mistakes being made are completely due to lack of experience and a fundamental lack of understanding and appreciation of how the bottom-up mutlistakeholder process built the Internet.
Replacing the current top layer, CEO on down, with any one of a number of community members seasoned in multistakeholdersim and names/numbers/protocols would solve many problems in short order.
Frustrated and living in fear
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
