The revision of ICANN’s bylaws to reflect the new accountability measures is proceeding on schedule. Public comments close May 21 and it is clear that only a few revisions will be needed to fully align the draft bylaws with the proposals of the IANA transition and enhanced accountability working groups.

Yet conservative nationalists in the U.S. are making a last-ditch effort to block the IANA transition. Having lost all rational argumentation about this matter, they are resorting to two devious stratagems. On one front, Texas Congressman Culberson is preparing another rider on the budget that would prevent the NTIA from spending any money on the process. On the second front, Senator Marco Rubio has sent a letter to the NTIA asking it to extend American control of ICANN for another two years so that the new governance arrangements can be “tested” before the US relinquishes control.

The Rubio letter echoes ideas developed by a Heritage Foundation paper issued a few months back. The letter commends the multi-stakeholder community’s development of a transition proposal, but claims that

…the Internet is too important to allow the transition to occur without certainty that the proposed accountability measures are adequate and that ICANN’s new governance structure works properly. Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider an extension of the NTIA contract with ICANN to ensure that the many changes in the transition proposal are implemented, operate as envisioned, and do not contain unforeseen problems, oversights, or complications that could undermine the multi-stakeholder model or threaten the openness, security, stability, or resiliency of the Internet.

The idea of a “test drive” is probably well-intentioned, but in fact it is an impractical idea that would completely disrupt the legitimate process. The new bylaws will be passed by the ICANN board sometime in late May. If the NTIA deems that the proposal the Internet community spent two years developing meets its criteria, it has repeatedly promised to implement the transition and end its contractual control of ICANN. Backing away from that commitment because of last-minute pressure from a few U.S. politicians would be a complete betrayal of the hundreds of people who worked hard developing the reforms and the millions of people worldwide who support them. The credibility of the U.S. government and the transition process would be shot. Such a move would also empower the cynics in Moscow, China and Europe who have always intimated that the US would never let go.

The other problem is that with the change in Presidential administration we have no idea who will be in charge of NTIA after January 2017, and it usually takes a new administration at least one year, sometimes more, to get its footing. So the rules and criteria for the transition could change completely depending on who is elected and who is appointed to replace Assistant Secretary Strickling. It is destabilizing to subject the transition to this kind of uncertainty.

Quite apart from the breaking of a vital commitment, the idea of a “test drive” of new institutional arrangements doesn’t make sense. Either ICANN is ultimately accountable to the U.S. government or it is accountable to the global multistakeholder community. There is really no middle ground here. If the US government has the authority to pull the plug on the reforms or alter them unilaterally, then everyone will know that it is the real authority and the new accountability arrangements cannot really be used or tested. The actors in this space will appeal to the NTIA when they don’t get what they want, and continue to reinforce the community’s dependence on the US government. You can’t really do laboratory experiments or “test drives” when making changes in governance institutions.

Imagine, for example, that near the end of the American Revolution an 18th century Heritage Foundation had said, “all these new democratic government models are new and untested. We don’t really know how well they will work. Why doesn’t the United States retain its status as a British colony under the King for a few years, and let him decide if the experiment has worked?”

The absurdity of this proposal should be evident. Either you have a new governance structure which duly transfers responsibility for self-governance to the community, or you don’t.

6 thoughts on “Two more speed bumps for the ICANN Reforms

  1. Yes and No.

    Take a step back and look at what is being proposed: a significant and important shift in control from the US government to a third-party. In that scenario, Congress is, rightly, acting as the final backstop and check.

    Now the internet community may have spent two years coming up with the plan but, as often happens within the small world of ICANN, people are confusing quantity of work with quality of outcome.

    The fact is that the internet community has not managed to extract a clear set of changes from ICANN and is instead relying on a complex fudge that no one really knows if it will achieve the desired goals or not.

    If history is anything to go by, ICANN’s staff and Board will implement some of the changes and claim they have done all of them, then mess about with the details until they basically end up with the status quo with added processes. ICANN’s history is littered with failed efforts: the IRP; the DIDP; the Board “reconsideration” committee; the whistleblower program; Board minutes; there are literally dozens of them.

    Nothing in the new plan changes that situation.

    Plus, there has been no change of heart at ICANN. The same behavior, mindset and approach within the organization is still there and it has been repeatedly displayed in the past year: the various IRPs, the .Africa case, the extraordinary efforts put into shutting down proposals it didn’t like through the IANA process; the complete lack of financial controls; the millions spent on secret lobbying; the massive wage increases. It is the same ICANN that has brought no less than eight accountability and transparency reviews on it over the past decade. Little has changed in real terms.

    The truth is that the internet community – and you Milton – have become too invested in making this happen that you can’t see the end result clearly.

    Congress’ job is to take a look at that end result and decide whether it’s good enough. With something this important that is unlikely to be done again for a very long time, it really is better to do it right rather than fast.

    Would a delay end the whole transition plan altogether? Possibly. But probably not. To wave around the fear of a Republican destruction plan as a reason for moving ahead regardless was a bad argument a year ago and it’s still a bad argument now.

    Would a delay give the internet community the ability to make sure ICANN doesn’t undermine this latest set of reforms? Almost certainly, yes.

    This proposal isn’t absurd. It’s good governance.

  2. Kieren
    Here at IGP we’ve been critically analyzing ICANN ever since…well, ever since you were a paid ICANN staff member posting almost daily apologias for ICANN on this site.
    We are fully aware that the transition plan is not perfect, here is a reference to our comprehensive overview and assessment
    The reforms definitely make things better, and your critique seems to ignore the way that the special role of the US government introduces its own twisted, dysfunctional problems.
    In the past 2 months we’ve been impressed with the willingness of the board to make the necessary compromises and concessions to satisfy the community and get this done. This is not the ICANN board of 2009 or 2002.

    1. As you know, I was a journalist that covered ICANN (among other things) for many years before I took a job at the org on an effort to introduce some real change. I think it was therefore over a decade ago that I noted your need to resort to add hominem attacks whether your slated analysis was called into question. Like ICANN, I see some things never change.

      My point is this: not enough had been done. The internet is confusing hard work with a good end result. A delay may be in the Internet’s best interests at this stage.


  3. Dear Mr. Mueller,

    excuse my asking, but would you mind providing a source for that citation you used above? It appears as if it was taken from said Rubio letter but I seem to be unable to find that on the web.
    Thank you for your help.


      1. Dear Milton,
        thank you very much. Now I can see what you mean about it echoing the Schaefer/Rosenzweig paper.
        Best regards

Comments are closed.