Internet Society Says 'Oh, Hell No' To ICANN's Plan For A 'UN Security Council For The Internet'
from the run-that-by-me-again dept
Earlier this month, ICANN, along with the World Economic Forum and a Brazilian government group called CGI.br, announced a NetMundial Initiative, which is being described as a sort of "UN Security Council for the internet." If NetMundial sounds familiar, that's because back in April there was a big meeting on internet governance in Brazil called NetMundial. While this has the same name, it seems to be basically unrelated to that, but rather, it appears to be these three groups setting themselves up in power positions over internet governance. While those behind it tossed in a bunch of buzzwords, about how it would be "open source," a "shared public resource" and would have a "bottom-up, transparent" process, there was a bit of a problem with all of that. You see, the three founding organizations also... installed themselves as permanent members who would control the council.
"Everything will be done bottom-up, this is the mother of all bottom-up processes," said Chehade to widespread disbelief in both the chatroom and on Twitter.So, ICANN is purely technical, and it needs to install itself as a permanent member of a committee that isn't technical to clarify why its role should be purely technical. Got that?
The claim that the initiative would not overlap other organizations' work was also derided. "Why create another platform?" asked one person in the short Q&A session after the presentation. "How do you expect to avoid duplication?"
Asked why ICANN was installing itself as a permanent member of a body that would only focus on non-technical issues when ICANN is specifically a technical body, Chehade gave an answer that left many scratching their heads:
"Why is ICANN on the Council? Precisely to clarify why our role should remain as it is: purely technical. It should not be at ICANN where these issues should be solved."
Anyway, you can see in the slide above, the "I* group" listed as being offered one of the remaining seats. The I* group was supposed to be made up of a bunch of organizations you should already be familiar with: the Internet Society, IETF, IAB, W3C, Regional Internet Registries, ICANN and regional TLD organizations (yes, it appears that the I* group also includes ICANN, despite its separate seat on this council). Either way, the folks at the Internet Society, who have been heavily involved in a variety of internet governance efforts, often in conjunction with ICANN, have slammed on the brakes after seeing this new initiative, saying that the group cannot support a plan that seems so questionably designed:
With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative and its Coordination Council, the Internet Society Board reiterates that the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, loosely coupled, distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.ISOC further notes that a much bigger priority is getting through the transition of the IANA functions, from being under NTIA/Dept. of Commerce to being separate, thus taking ICANN out from under the thumb of the US government. As we've noted in the past, we support this move as being necessary for a variety of reasons, including some that will help prevent dangerous changes to internet governance. However, if this is the kind of crap that ICANN is going to pull, it's only going to raise even more skepticism about the organization's position in managing key parts of the internet.
Based on the information that we have to date, the Internet Society cannot agree to participate in or endorse the Coordination Council for the NETmundial Initiative. We are concerned that the way in which the NETmundial Initiative is being formed does not appear to be consistent with the Internet Society’s longstanding principles.
Kudos to the Internet Society for not just giving in. Yes, if you look over the presentation below, there may be plenty of good ideas embedded in the NetMundial project, but if it's going to go forward, it simply cannot include founding members electing themselves to a permanent controlling position (and also giving those organizations tremendous power in selecting the other council members). This is not how the internet should be run.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bottom up, council, netmundial, netmundial initiative, permanent members, transparent
Companies: cgi.br, icann, internet society, isoc, wef
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How can you support such a move after learning of this particular initiative? Giving ICANN and other private organizations jurisdiction over Internet governance effectively makes them private, sovereign entities. If that's not enough to scare you, you haven't given it enough thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ICANN only cares about one thing
That's it. That's why the one-entity-one-domain rule was abandoned. That's why there are no repercussions whatsoever for registrars. That's why there are registrars which are (variously) fraudulent, owned by spammers, owned by domainers, and owned by scammers. That's why there are now hundreds of new TLDs that nobody needs.
ICANN only cares about profit because it's been completely captured by the people it was supposed to regulate, and all they care about it profit.
So let's not kid ourselves that ICANN gives a damn about the technical or non-technical future of the Internet. All it cares about is extracting as much money as possible, damn the consequences. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't try this stunt much sooner: it aligns precisely with their previous tactics and is a natural continuance of those.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
go f..k yourself usa and brazil
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But on a serious note, the National Broadband Plan is being pointed as a model for a few third world countries in internet development. And there's a effort from government trying to improve online transaction and payment processing, and the spreading of the internet has been a major source of growth for our Sector of Services, as our Federal Consumer's Code applies in the entire country and stablish quite a few warranties and rights for consumers as long as the seller is located in Brazil. For instance, i technically OWN my e-books, and in case I'm victim of fraud, my bank has the burden of proof.
Online shopping revenue in Brazil is going from an esteemed R$ 4 Bilion in 2010 to nearly R$ 30 Bilion this year. And could be even higher, if we didn't have so many logistical troubles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Therefore I agree with OP that ICANN needs to get out from under the thumb of a particular government. Now, where it is going, is the 100 dollar question. ITU has made a bid to take it over and introduce standards for deep packet inspections and other steps to suit the less democratic countries of the world. This organisation looks better than that alternative, but as mentioned, it isn't perfect or even necessarily good either given how little civil society and academia is awarded and the always problematic permanent memberships.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I care more about facts than perceptions.
On the other hand, how do you get out from under ICANN's thumb if it proves not to have the public's best interests at heart? Government regulations are at least subject to due process and judicial review, but ICANN is a private corporation. That gives it a lot more leeway. Without a bill of rights to restrict its actions, it could get away with an awful lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But most people are the opposite. Perceptions are incredibly important and affect reality just as much as facts do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]