[EURO-Discuss] R: Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition (Rinalia Abdul Rahim)

[Johan Helsingius]

Eberhard,

On 04-10-16 12:35, Eberhard Blocher wrote:

> Checks and balances were put in place, even the possibility for the
> ICANN board to be forced to step down if they should abuse the power
> bestowed upon them. However, what the CCWG did create was just a "model"
> country, not the real thing.

You say that like it was a bad thing! :)

> So basically, in my opinion, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of
> democracy and a lack of accountability in this ICANN multi-stakeholder
> modell, which is supposed to govern IANA in future.

No. We have put some very strong measures in place (and continue
refining them) to make ICANN much more transparent and accountable
than any national government. But the multi-stakeholder model means
that ICANN is not just accountable to governments or citizens of
a particular country, but the whole Internet community.

> Just consider what was there before, i.e. up to September 30th. The DoC,
> i.e. NTIA, had all the power. What would have happened if they had
> abused this power, for example, deleting a TLD from the root?

The most likely thing to have happened would have been that
the Internet community would have moved away from the IANA root,
and created an alternative root system. That option still exists.

> Something
> which never happened, of course, but it could have happened. Well, in
> that case, diplomatic pressure could have been put upon the US
> Government. For example, imagine the NTIA deleting the .DE zone from the
> root. In that case, the American Ambassodor to Germany could have been
> summoned to report to the German Government, and Lawrence E. Strickling
> would certainly have had to justify his actions. This is a huge amount
> of power that the German Government, or any government affected, could
> have applied.

And now, instead of just the governments, all parts of the
Internet community have that power, through the Empowered
Community.

> Now imagine what would happen in future if ICANN decided to delete any
> zone from the root. All that would remain to be done would be sending a
> letter to Göran Marby, or to Steve Crocker. And then, you would have to
> sit back and hope and pray that one of them will answer the letter of
> complaint. There is no way any foreign government, or indeed anyone who
> is not an American citizen, could apply any direct power to Mr Marby or
> Mr Crocker. ICANN is a private sector company incorporated in
> California. There is nothing anyone can do about this.

There you are wrong. The Empowered Community could definitely
act, and, if they so wanted, replace the whole ICANN board.

> Therefore, October 1st, the IANA Stewardship Transition, was a very sad
> day for the Internet we know and cherish.

I really have to disagree with you. You seem to want to channel
all control through national governments, but not all national
governments really represent their citizens, and even when they
do, they only represent the interests of their own country - and
the Internet covers more than one country or culture.

As you seem to like imaginary scenarios, let's imagine the
Netherlands insisting ICANN bans all web domains that contain
material that is negative towards the Dutch Royal Family
(note that I picked a pretty much absurd example in the
name of political neutrality). Should it be possible for the
Netherlands to exert diplomatic pressure on ICANN in that
case? Would that be in the best interest of the Internet as
a whole?

Regards,

	Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA)