veryone knows the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Being in too much of a hurry and full of self-confidence can lead to bad decisions and missing the goal on time. But what does this tale have to do with the domain business and the internet?
In 2014 and 2015, we are going through one of the more fundamental changes regarding internet governance in a long time. The change is based on two processes, the so-called IANA transition and ICANN’s accountability. In these two parallel processes, I see a risk that ICANN may start to behave much like the hare in the famous tale.
Navigating the internet has a central function. The so-called IANA functions form the technical basis for the internet on a global scale. This includes the allocation of IP addresses, the right to administer/have control over top-level domains and approval of other types of protocols that are necessary for a uniform internet to work universally.
The IANA transition is what we call the United States’ intent announced in March of 2014 to transfer the IANA functions to the global internet community. A portion of the transfer is to define the participants of which the global internet community consists.
Since 1998, ICANN has been hosting the IANA functions. It is also ICANN who has now been tasked to assist with the coordination of the possible transfer. The decision regarding the IANA transition has therefore triggered another important process: Who should take responsibility for the IANA functions if something goes wrong?
The latter is used as fuel for a discussion about ICANN’s accountability. At the moment, ICANN is working under contract with the United States. How can liability be regulated without this agreement? Should there be more agreements? Should ICANN become an international organization? You can read more about ICANN’s accountability here.
These two parallel processes are complex and the work to find a solution is now moving into ”hare-tempo.” I have followed ICANN myself for over eight years and both the tempo and the complexity of these ongoing processes is higher than ever. It is hard to be popular when one wants to be like the tortoise, relaxing and reflecting. But who will be in time to say that the tempo is too high?
I already see risks with this.
First and foremost, ”the multi-stakeholder model” is becoming more of a fancy name for meritocracy where few decide without others being involved. To build knowledge takes time. We have already had nearly ten years of IGF discussions. And a little off-topic – If we are going to protect the bottom-up and multi-stakeholder model, how should one interpret ICANN launching a new discussion for internet governance together with the World Economic Forum? It’s hard to be more elitistic than that.
How many people can be involved if we determine a new model for internet governance in just over a year? The risk is that a small group will decide. And the risk is even higher if the meritocracy is not determined by merit, but rather by self-interest.
The tempo leads to money and resources becoming more important. Who has the time and the means to attend all of the meetings in the world? Who has the time and means to read, understand and respond to all proposals on short notice? Who has the time and means to allocate resources for participation? Does it work then with a consultation or comment period? How should it be interpreted if there are no comments?
The tempo excludes participating organizations. It is not possible to discuss in larger groups and form ideas together in time. All energy is needed to run and nothing can be set aside for talking (even though discussions are where the best ideas come from).
The tempo allows the person who holds the baton to control the process too much. There is a risk that ICANN consciously or unconsciously can affect the process too much. Is there time to question whether ICANN is needed and if so, in what capacity?
My question is what should be most important; the goal or the time? The time is set and we are counting backwards. Say we have 3 – 4 months left until the first solution proposal. Is this reasonable?
Should we perhaps have an audience response check in the process each month to confirm full participation? Who is on the train and who is left standing on the platform? How do we measure if the process is working? Or do we only measure if there is a suggestion, no matter how bad or good it is?
Author: Danny Aerts CEO, .SE Danny Aerts is CEO of .SE since 2006. He is originally from the Netherlands and came to Sweden in the mid-1990s. Danny has worked at several telecommunications companies, such as Unisource Mobile, Telia, and PTT Telecom and CEO of Internet portal Spray.
Source: https://www.iis.se/english/blog/icann-and-the-tale-of-the-tortoise-and-the-hare/
