[ALAC] Bad Actor Admission

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 02:04, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com> wrote:


> thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm wondering if this implies we
> should get rid of ICANN/multistakeholderism? Is there a better alternative
> to governing the global network? If so, what is it? I am well aware that
> governments (some more than others) are just waiting for ICANN to fail and
> are eager to take over where we leave it off. Is that what you're referring
> to? Should we just give up, cos MS is a faulty model in itself? I'm
> genuinely interested.
>

Hi Joanna,

The concept of MSM is splendid, ICANN's implementation of it is awful.

As Olivier said, it's about balance. In ICANN, control is in the hands of
the cartel of domain sellers and domain buyers. By its own rules ICANN is
*obligated* to implement what this cartel wants, and to heck with the rest
of us. The bodies charged with protecting the public interest at ICANN --
governments, technology experts and At-Large -- are relegated to the
sidelines, in advisory capacity with barely an obligation to be heard let
alone heeded. How ICANN has operated, and the results of its decisions,
clearly demonstrate the dominance of the will of the industry that ICANN is
supposed charged with overseeing. The inmates truly are running the asylum,
and the monied interests like it that way. In a way it's not very different
than the way that Google, Facebook and other large tech firms have resisted
public oversight and insist their self-regulation is sufficient to serve
the public interest.

There are other models of MS which I have liked better than ICANN's. The
IETF does IMO a good job keeping corporate interests heard but not forced
upon it. The model used at the Netmundial conference in 2014 struck a
better balance between business, government and public interest, and
deserves consideration. There may be other models of which I am not aware.

Meanwhile ... the current status quo is propped up by never-ending FUD that
the only alternative to ICANN's model of industry capture is the ITU model
of government capture. Of course, the ITU does its part to support ICANN by
periodically holding meetings so incompetently run so to justify the fear.
What is not spoken about is the fact that genuine options exist beyond
these two undesirable extremes.

Once upon a time I believed that the Internet Governance Forum was the
perfect place in which alternative models could be designed and proposed.
That belief has diminished as I have found the IGF over time to revel in
its own insignificance, and contents itself to fret over the situation
without considering real change. I have no idea where true innovation in
this field will come, and this realization is a major source of my current
cynicism.

If a sane alternative does not arise, we will continue to be presented with
nothing more than choice between the ICANN or ITU ways of doing things.
Eventually the ITU will win this binary duel because ultimately governments
will tire of the unwillingness of ICANN to truly incorporate the public
interest into its decision-making. And I remind once again that there is no
international treaty requiring the countries of the world to acknowledge
ICANN as manager of the global DNS; ICANN's mandate is maintained through
inertia and (ever-diminishing) goodwill.

I hope I have addressed your interest, at least a little bit.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190301/8cc4edf9/attachment.html>