US govt: Am I the only one around here who cares about DNS security and stability?

The horrors of the 'multistakeholder model' (barf)

Unfortunately, what the process of deciding the IANA transition has highlighted is the dangerous flaws within the current model of governance that ICANN espouses: the so-called "multistakeholder model" where all impacted groups are given an equal say in the process.

The reality of the model is that while it purports to be open and welcome, it is in fact dominated by a small group of insiders who unwittingly or otherwise end up excluding anyone who is not able to dedicate a huge proportion of their working week to following ICANN discussions, i.e. other insiders.

As a result, while discussions tend to start out open-minded, they soon move into well-worn paths of self-interest. Where the first working group ended up giving itself the role of the US government, the second working group has started awarding itself the role of the ICANN board.

In response, the ICANN staff and board has spent increasing amounts of their time trying to pick holes in the proposed models rather than putting forward solutions, further raising tension in the small group.

In perhaps the greater sign that the group has lost sight of itself, the critical process of putting the plan out for public comment – which is supposed to be the external check on ICANN's deliberations – has been poorly handled.

The group actually reduced the public comment period from 45 days to 30 after two anonymous ICANN staff decided it was OK to do so. Few comments were received from anyone not already within the ICANN community. And the group has spent more time writing responses to the comments that oppose their model than in listening to the constructive criticism and revising their plans. In other words: classic insider, unaccountable behavior.

Running out of time

Back in March 2014, Strickling said the US government would hand over control of the IANA contract to the internet community and then in an effort to demonstrate its readiness to take on the task, left the transition plan up to the internet community itself to decide. He originally proposed that those deliberations be tied up by September this year, when the current IANA contract is due to expire.

That deadline is clearly not going to be met, so Strickling again calls for the internet community to give the US government an estimate for how long it will take so they can plan a related IANA contract extension.

Even with that extension, the ICANN community is under a huge amount of pressure to get results in a decent timeframe. The unfortunate result of that and the self-interested solutions that are coming out of the working groups is that the groups may have to fall back on a barely modified version of the status quo, creating another 15 years of dysfunctional management at the top level of the internet.

The sad irony is that without the US government holding the reins, in future there won't be anyone who can force the organization to step back from bad decisions. ®