Posts Tagged ‘ICANN’

A Modest Proposal for ICANN

Monday, June 21st, 2010

When it comes to accountability, ICANN would rather be compared to other U.S. nonprofit companies than to the regulatory bodies it more closely resembles. If they truly wish to be treated like a nonprofit, rather than a regulator, there is a very simple solution: make all contributions strictly voluntary.

The ever-disappointed Accountability and Transparency Review Team for ICANN met with the ICANN board yesterday, and were told their expectations for real accountability mechanisms were simply TOO high.  Instead of attempting to model accountability mechanisms after the global regulatory bodies ICANN most resembles, an ICANN Board member suggested that new accountability measures should be based on those of US-based nonprofits. I think this is a BRILLIANT idea.

American-based nonprofits like International Red Cross and the Sierra Club have the ultimate accountability mechanism. If they stop serving the needs of their constituents, their constituents can simply end their support.

With such a simple, effective mechanism in place, comprehensive and redundant systems of checks and balances really aren’t necessary. Nonprofits know that they live and die on the trust and commitment of their supporters, and they act accordingly.

So if ICANN wants the community to get off its back about improving its accountability processes, the solution is simple. Instead of extracting a forced donation from every domain name registrant in the world, ICANN should make that donation optional.

On every registrar’s checkout page, ICANN could include a simple checkbox with the caption “click here if you’d like to donate a dollar to support DNS management.” If that change causes a minor drop off in ICANN’s funding, ICANN could supplement its income with a global pledge drive in which it highlighted its achievements and asked users for their support.

Some of ICANN’s executives may have to take pay cuts, and our beloved global meetings may have to be held in less exotic locations, but the accountability problem would be solved once and for all, and ICANN could have its wish of being compared not to regulators, but to other U.S. nonprofits.

Alternatively, ICANN’s board and staff can abandon the utterly spurious argument that it should be treated like other nonprofits, and set about trying to correct the serious accountability flaws that have plagued the organization since its inception.

IGF And The Secret War on Freedom of Speech (AMENDED)

Friday, December 5th, 2008

Three years ago, the Financial Times published an op-ed by ACT president Jonathan Zuck regarding the first effort by governments like China, Iran, and Cuba to replace ICANN and its multi-stakeholder, bottom up-decision making process with a top-down government led body to dictate technological and policy decisions.  At the time, Jonathan wrote:

These countries and others want to become global regulators of the
internet. This effort is being driven under the guise of "internet
governance", but it is really about internet control: control of how
and whether one gets access; control of content and control over the
internet's infrastructure, the crown jewels that make all of it work.

A simple look at "who" is pushing for more government control over Internet governance issues reminds us that this really still about increasing government control and limiting Internet freedom.

Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's PMBerlusconi041808-putin

While Berlusconi isn't here at IGF, he is reportedly planning to use Italy's upcoming presidency of the G8 Summit to push for an international agreement to "regulate the
internet."

If you aren't familiar with Mr. Berlusconi's political past, you might find this mildy troubling, but not "Katy Bar the Door" frightening the way I (and seemingly most Italian bloggers do). 

When you run a government as corrupt as Mr. Berlusconi's, you generally have a disdain for Freedom of the Press.  Otherwise, they may question you when your government passes new legislation to grant
immunity from criminal trials
to the holders of the five highest
offices of state, at the same time you are on trial for criminal offenses.  Thankfully for Mr. Berlusconi he already owns most of the press in Italy, so they don't ask the serious questions.  But, for pesky real journalists and bloggers like those at the Economist, he has used every tool at his disposal to silence them

Everton Lucero & The Brazilian Government
Brazilian-press-association1

At the IGF today, Everton Lucero, the Brazilian representative to ICANN's
Government Advisory Council (GAC) delivered a beautiful speech filled with inspiring rhetoric about returning Internet Governance back to the concept of "We the People" and taking the power out of the hands of the "nobles and landlords."  Unfortunately, that is all it was: a beautiful speech that ignored reality in an attempt to grab the power to control the Internet and censor content.  ICANN gives the user community, "The People," a direct voice in decision-making that most governments do not even come close to delivering.

Despite its embrace of Free Software and the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the Brazilian Government's actions to censor speech have inspired this campaign from the Brazilian Press Association

Brazil's government has shown an increasing distaste for Freedom of Speech, especially on the Internet.  The government had a recent documentary exposing some of the most egregious efforts at political censorship of the press pulled from local television.

On the Internet, Brazil bullied Google into giving them the ability to freely censor content on the social network, Orkut.  It has even threatened to join China in blocking  access to ALL WordPress blogs!

Clearly we don't want governments like this gaining MORE power of the future of the Internet.  I
can't think of better example of why we should fear the calls by
government bureaucrats here at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to
replace the Internet's current multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms
with government-led bodies.  The governments calling for these
changes almost universally are interested in limiting the freedom of
today's Internet – not increasing it.

UPDATE/AMENDMENT: In similar comments before the IGF main session yesterday, I made the mistake of overstating Brazil's efforts to censor political dissent online – comparing them directly to China (who had just made comments critical of ICANN).  It was an unfortunate exaggeration in the heat of the moment.  Free Speech is protected by the Brazilian constitution and they do have a pretty diverse media world that is far different than China.  But that does not change the fact that they have made troubling moves toward the Internet and political speech as referenced above. This has left them with a "Partly Free" rating from Freedom House. This article from Committee to Protect Journalists outlines additional efforts by the current Brazilian government to regulate or censor media.

According to the Brazilian delegate's response to my comments, however, it also appears I misunderstood his position on ICANN. I sincerely hope I did, and they are merely looking to work within the ICANN world, rather than tear it down or replace it.

Live from Hyderabad! Alphabet Soup Conference Time!

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

ACT has two people who have flown to Hyderabad, India to participate in multiple events built around the United Nations Economic Development arm sponsored “Internet Governance Forum” Conference.
In addition to the main IGF conference, there’s the ICC/BASIS meeting, the WITSA meeting, the GigaNet meeting and a whole raft of “Dynamic Coalition” meetings.
Right now in the WITSA meeting, Markus Kummer Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the UN IGF, is giving a breakdown of the Conference to the board of WITSA.
Here is a summary of Mr. Kummer’s main points and the vision for IGF moving forward:
History and basis for IGF:

  • WSIS asked the UN Sec Gen to establish the IGF.
  • IT industry did not ask for IGF, but is beginning to see the value in IGF’s ‘soft governance’ model
  • IGF is run by the UN Economic Development project (not the ITU).
  • IGF was purposely given no rules of procedure or document negotiation powers.
  • While some groups want IGF to have voting rules, governments would never agree to be bound by votes where non-Government stakeholders gets equal voting rights.

Future of IGF:

  • Will IGF continue after its current mandate ends in 2010?
  • UN Sec Gen will do a review and recommend a resolution to the full UN Gen Assembly.
  • Only Governments will vote on that resolution of whether to continue IGF. They won’t amend the resolution substantially.

So what does this all mean? It means the international governmental community is very interested in the Internet, and they aren’t going away – but they are interested in hearing from more than just other governments.