Well, first of all, let's applaud ICANN for finally opening up and allowing its Board members to make public statements on the highly controversial dotcom registry agreement that hands VeriSign enormous control, power and money in return for taking its hands off ICANN's throat.
I know several Board members have been fighting for the right to make public statements and that it was agreed a few months ago that if they desired they could make a statement that would be entered into the public record.
But agreeing and happening are two different things. And especially considering the extremely critical nature of some of the statements that have come out, it demonstrates at least some effort on ICANN's part to be more open.
Plus it has produced a transcript of the very end of the meeting. Nothing much in it but it is a start.
Of course these statements have only arrived two days later, avoiding the embarassing situation of critical Board member comments hitting the press on the same day as the announcement.
Critics
And most critical by far was Susan Crawford. I don't think it's any mistake that Susan is the newest Board member. She hasn't had time to be subsumed into the culture where the Board agrees with whatever Vint says. Instead she looked at the deal afresh and I have to say I think her dissection is bold, intelligent, fair and balanced.
In contrast, all the stated reasons as to why people voted for the dotcom contract are the same reasons you always hear: it's the best we can get; the ICANN staff have been working hard; the DoC won't agree to anything else; VeriSign will wipe us out; we have to decide now because there is some kind of time largely undefined constraint.
As Raimundo Beca made clear in his statement, the Board just isn't getting enough information about what is really going on. He wrote as one of his points: “The role played by the DoC and the DoJ in the achievement of this agreement has not been really clarified to the Board.” That despite numerous questions.
But it was Susan Crawford that had the courage to say what she thought. The first para of her statement basically sums up her point: “The proposed new Registry Agreement with VeriSign poses unacceptable risks to the values that underly ICANN's mission. For this reason, entry into this proposed agreement is not in ICANN's best interest. ICANN is facing extensive criticism around the world, and its top priority should be to act in accordance with its values of increasing competition, acting transparently, and being accountable to the Internet community. This approach has the advantage of being both pragmatic and principled.”
The flip-side
Veni Markovski – who, I must admit, I was surprised to see had voted for the agreement – was most eloquent in the reasons why the agreement should be a yes. “I think the agreement is a positive step forwards, as it puts an end to a long-lasting tension, which was driving ICANN away from its main job” – and – “I don't think ICANN is betraying the people who genuinely supported ICANN throughout the years by settling this case. I think that we took a very difficult decision.”
He goes on: “It has always been easier to criticise than to send positive contribution to ICANN.” And he's right, but I also disagree with him. I think that if the contract had been a smaller deal, or if it had attracted at least some support from the wider Internet community, then this pragmatic approach would be more arguable. But as it is, this was a big deal.
I do like the fact though that Veni ends: “In any case, we'll see soon whether this was a 'good day for the Internet', or a 'death sentence' for ICANN” – especially since I wrote exactly that, that ICANN has signed its own “death warrant”. It's always good to have people taking the wider view – and taking the piss where necessary.
The official rewritten history
There is a joint statement by the Board members that voted yes. I really don't think there's much point in outlining it here because it contains nothing that you don't already know (although of course I have covered its contents for a news story I just did for The Register – the difference between blogs and news stories).
In fact, I think the joint statement will only irritate people further because it treats them like idiots. The joint statement provides its own version of history, but surely the whole point should be to answer the particular questions put to ICANN by the people that know what is going on?
The justification for the presumptive right of renewal may persuade someone who has no idea of the history or knowledge of the Internet, or its current realities, but arguing that giving VeriSign permanent control of dotcom at this point “merely clarifies this point, and does not, in our judgment, make any substantive change” is absolutely ridiculous.
Everyone knows that dotcom is a special case. No registrar can survive without selling dotcoms domains, and so VeriSign has the one registry where it can tell the registrars what to do. Every other registry has to keep registrars on side.
The special dotcom
While in future, dotcom is likely to become just one of many domains – albeit one that still stands out in front – that is most definitely not the case now. To pretend otherwise is to insult people's intelligence. VeriSign doesn't need to have a presumptive right of renewal – for the next 15 years companies will throw money at anyone that owns the dotcom registry, just because it's the dotcom registry.
The glossing over of the fact that deal was made in secret and in private and then a public comment process was rushed through and then largely ignored is again only going to infuriate people.
ICANN staff simply did not adequately reflect the wider community's feelings, and the changes made to the agreement were the absolute bare minimum that could be made. ICANN has then sought on three occasions to push the deal through the Board. And it is testament to some of the Board members that they kept asking questions.
Even so, it was still pushed through – and for a single reason: to make sure that the US government had time to approve it in time for ICANN's New Zealand meeting at the end of this month.
How on earth can the ICANN community expect to accept the Board's insistence that it has listened to them when ICANN staff have done all they can to get the deal agreed before the public meeting?
All change
What is interesting though is that it is the new Board members that voted against the deal. And the ones due to leave in December this year voted for it. It seems clear that there is a change in culture, not even a change, a big split, in the Board.
The question is: can ICANN hang on to its authority through the whole of this year? It will have to do that, then bring in new Board members that are more in tune with what's going on, and then demonstrate to everyone that things have changed before any level of trust can be rebuilt.
If it can do *that*, then ICANN just might be able to cling on until December 2007, at which point Vint Cerf and Alejandro Pisanty have to leave the Board. And then anything is possible – but that is a very long way away considering all the important issues that will crop up in the meantime: IDNs, the IGF, .xxx, enhanced co-operation, new top-level domains, China…
The people to watch will be those hoping to jump in at the top of ICANN in December 2007, namely Michael Palage, Veni Markovski and Joichi Ito.
Mike Palage abstained from the dotcom vote. Veni Markovski voted yes, but said it was difficult and he agreed with points made by Susan Crawford. And Joichi Ito voted no, but said he would support the Board 100 percent in what it agreed overall.
These three clearly believe that ICANN has a future. At the moment anyway.
