[ALAC] Bad Actor Admission

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Olivier.

[ much cut ]

Of course some will dispute the IETF as being expensive for participants
> since one has to pay to register to attend an IETF meeting and it is nearly
> impossible to get a standard through the IETF process without physically
> attending an IETF meeting - or more than one.
>

The state of virtual meeting technology makes this problem addressable
should the will exist. Vote-by-humming will have to be adapted but it's
doable.

Others, primarily from Civil Society, will tell you that NetMundial was a
> complete failure. Remember how Civil Society withdrew its support at the
> end?
>

They were upset that government got more say than they did, what they
wanted was not likely to be acceptable to anyone else. Still, that model
had plenty of room to adapt -- again, should the will exist.

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.
>
>
> Please elaborate on these options.
>

One that I have personally liked flips the AC/SO model, so it is the public
interest bodies whose consensus binds ICANN (governments, at-large/civil
society, technical community) while the commercial interests are in the
advisory role.

And it sounds like you are yourself aware of alternate ways to go



> 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.
>
>
> That is the only point which I do not agree with you.
>

I really hope you are right.

Because ICANN is not treaty-supported, it only takes one major scandal or
major misfunction at ICANN to bring "plan B" to the forefront. I agree that
government capture -- especially with the participation of countries who
see the Internet as a way to force direction of social behavior -- is
inferior to the status quo. But I truly believe that the current ICANN
model is unsustainable, and without a credible middle path there may be no
alternative once ICANN runs out of steam (and friends).
Consider that ICANN is part of a much bigger picture unfolding globally.
Governments around the world have become fed up with unregulated Internet
companies which have stifled consumer competition (Amazon), facilitated
disinformation on a global scale (Facebook), made the trade of people's
private data their core revenue model (Google) and locked consumers into
closed technical ecosystems (Apple).

I personally see a changing mood of the public that is increasingly calling
on governments to regulate these companies. The world is tired of Mark
Zuckerberg endlessly saying "we're doing our best, leave us alone". What
broad form the inevitable backlash will take is unknown but is already
happening country by country, from the Chinese social credit system or the
massive EU fines on Google. Even the regulatory-light USA still has its own
very clear and heavily enforced limits (ie, online gambling).

My point here is that whatever direction these global moves go, ICANN is
going to get caught up in them. In its own way ICANN's embedded industry
entitlement attitude exhibits exactly the same kind of "we're doing our
best, leave us alone" mentality that the world sees from GAFA. If ICANN
refuses the role of regulator, something else is inevitably destined to
take that role. But what?

ICANN, unlike GAFA, has the means to reform itself. But post-IANA I posit
that its situation is worse. The "empowered community" further entrenches
the "inmates are running the asylum" model that resists oversight (let
alone regulation) from outside the cartel. ICANN's community, collectively,
appears to the outside world no less arrogant than GAFA -- and no less
worthy of reaction.

What role will we in the public interest community play in that reaction?
Time will tell if we press for real reform or are satisfied with the
current industry capture with a little tinkering.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190301/a75cce90/attachment.html>