[Ecommerce] ICANN prez delivers internet vision

[Michelle Childs]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/twomey_interview/
ICANN prez delivers internet vision
By Kieren McCarthy
Published Monday 18th July 2005 15:34 GMT
Interview In his most revealing interview since taking charge of internet
overseeing organisation ICANN in March 2003, president Paul Twomey has
accused governments looking to subsume ICANN into a UN body as "living in
a political fantasy land", while at the same time being thankful that the
internet community doesn't have tanks.

Just months before the future of the internet is decided at a world summit
in Tunisia, Twomey also tackled the US government's recent assertion of
control over the foundation of the internet, plus internal criticism of
the organisation's expanding budget and the recent process that handed
ownership of the dot-net registry to VeriSign.

 Twomey also:

Accused some governments of being short-sighted in their aims
Offered reform of ICANN's governmental advisory committee (GAC)
Praised the "robust and colourful" internet community
Called for greater interaction in ICANN's decision-making processes
Promised that ICANN would focus on improving its core technical functions
He also outlined how ICANN was now entering the world of
inter-governmental negotiations as the internet grows from its roots of
being an engineer and academic-created network to a global medium with
vital implications for worldwide education, information and commerce, plus
the role he expected to play in keeping ICANN's best interests at the top
of the agenda.

WGIG
But first, with the UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
report just published in which it outlines four models for the future of
the internet's administration, only one of which sees ICANN retain its
autonomy, Twomey was keen to point out the distinct advantages that the
current model has for world governments.

"I think ICANN came out of that very intense investigation pretty well -
pretty damn well actually. The question is now really focusing on what is
the appropriate place for governments where they can interact.

"I think it=92s very important that in this single interoperable internet
that doesn=92t know boundaries, that has been built up through the academic
and private network, that handles huge numbers of resolutions today, is
very much a source of innovation, it=92s a bit useless just to have
governments in a room - you=92re going to have to go through a
multi-stakeholder process just to inform everybody people about what is
going on.

"In that sense I am much more a pragmatist than a purist, I think that the
pragmatic benefit to the international community is to have a
multi-stakeholder focus for discussion."

And, of course, Twomey sees ICANN's own Governmental Advistory Committee
(GAC) as providing governments with the ideal entry point into that
process. He is happy to see changes if they eleviate governments' current
concerns: "If they wish to change the name of it, that=92s up to them insid=
e
the GAC. If they want to revise how it works, that=92s up to them. But it
strikes me it would be exceptionally short-sighted of a government to say
=91I want to get rid of this=92 for whatever political theory reason when
actually it=92s a mechanism whereby they can ensure that something that the=
y
cannot guarantee will be put in place."

And by "cannot guarantee", Twomey is quite explicit: "The internet is well
over 200,000 interconnecting private networks. Nobody owns the whole
thing. ICANN has contractual agreements - has over 500 of them - with
registries and registrars which help set frameworks for how those
functions work across those networks, and those are contracts written in
international private law.

"One of the key provisions of every contract we sign is that the party
agrees to abide by consensus policy. And consensus policy is a process
outlined in our bylaws whereby all the various parties, stakeholders in
ICANN, can come together and agree a consensus around some policy that
needs to be implemented. Once they agree to this consensus policy - that
applies to every contract we have."

Contrary to one of the models outlined in the WGIG report, Twomey argues
that the GAC cannot be pulled out of the current mechanism. "The
government advisory committee is an essential and integral part of ICANN.
It's not a separable part." And as for the plans to break ICANN apart
completely: "If the UN decides to go with one of the other plans, they
could throw a very important baby out with the bathwater."

Besides, the alternative to the GAC and ICANN process is, in real terms,
non-existent. Governments could of course bring out their own legislation
to cover different elements of the internet, but "they would only apply in
their jurisdiction. A few countries would try to have extra-territoriality
and we'd just ignore them.

"[Alternatively], they could try to pass some international treaty which
is then going to bind private companies, but we=92re talking political
fantasy land. There is no indication as I can see that there is going to
be any sort of support for a binding international treaty that going to
cover all countries of the world and bind all of the companies involved
with the internet through that treaty - I just don=92t see it happening. Th=
e
internet fundamentally was built through private contract."

On top of that, Twomey points out that the GAC already has a tremendous
amount of power in the ICANN system: "There=92s no instance that I know of =
-
and I should know because I was chair of the GAC for four years - no
instance I know of where the GAC has not got what it=92s asked for."

The US government and its 'principles'
But, of course, ICANN had reckoned without the US government announcing
just a few days before the WGIG report was published, a series of four
"principles" in which it stated it will "maintain its historic role"
overseeing the internet's root zone file.

None of the UN's four models of future internet governance see the US
government retain overall control. The report even goes so far to say: "No
single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
international internet governance."

This puts ICANN in a difficult spot, especially with Twomey having gone on
record numerous times in the past as saying he expected US control to be
handed over when ICANN's contract with the government (a "Memorandum of
Understanding" (MoU)) ends late next year.

Twomey says he was surprised at the media reaction, which reported the
announcement as a US government refusal to hand over control of the
internet. He is more circumspect: "The first three principles are written
in the present tense or the near future tense. They are a statement of the
present state of what they do.

"The key thing about such documents is not what they say, but what they
don't say. It doesn't say anything about the MoU. This is not a bad thing
- contrary to what=92s in the media. We have an MoU that still goes through
to September 2006, it=92s an established document, we=92re working towards
that. Do we see this as some sort of radical disenfranchisement of ICANN?
Absolutely not. I think some of the media misinterpreted it as being a
document directed towards us. I suspect it was a document directed towards
other governments. "

What Twomey is saying is that the first principle which has caused the
fuss is a bargaining tool with the UN as the future of internet governance
is thrashed out. There is no suggestion that the US government will
continue to insist on control of the root zone once the WSIS process is
complete.

Here is that first principle: "Given the internet's importance to the
world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the internet
remain stable and secure. As such, the United States is committed to
taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the
effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain
its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the
authoritative root zone file."

Twomey is bemused: "I don't think anybody should be surprised that the
United States government would come out with this statement now as a set
of principles with which it could then go and talk to other governments.
And I suspect that is the process happening at the moment."

Internal criticism
If ICANN has found itself under the spotlight from outside, it is also
under stronger criticism from within its own organisation. In particular,
its ever-expanding budget and the recent process by which VeriSign was
handed back control of the dot-org registry.

Twomey begins with an observation of the internet community as a whole.
"There's no point in having a thin skin in this game. In the internet
community from the very beginning it=92s robust. Some of our friends from
the diplomatic community that have come to watch ICANN meetings have sat
there somewhat shocked. I suppose one thing about the internet community
is that we don=92t have tanks. If you=92re a diplomat and you start talking
like that, you know, next week the tanks are rolling."

But such fireworks serve a purpose: "It's very useful because it brings up
problems, it's a way of solving problems. But yes, there's still
personalities, and yes I suppose they are going to continue and they are
going to continue to be noisy and that's fine. I have experienced in my
own previous life as a government officials, the full and varied and
colourful vitriol that Australian citizens can come up with when dealing
with the elected representatives and their officials. I think it=92s
healthy. It means issues come out quickly."

And nowhere has that criticism been as strong as in the recent retendering
process for the dot-net process. The rage was such that chairman Vint Cerf
himself apologised at the start of a public meeting for how the process
had been handled.

Twomey however insists that there was no wrong-doing. "The whole dot-net
process was this 18-month process with a lot of open consultation and a
lot of open transparent processes to put that together. In any environment
where people are going to win and lose, people are going to criticise. But
I think the process has pretty much stood up.

"Whatever came out, whether VeriSign was to be successful or someone else
was successful, people would have had various alternative conspiracy
theories. And there=92s nothing we can do about that. All we can do is
follow a process and put it through.

"I can tell you - and I am absolutely personally emphatic about this - we
ran a process, the process was evaluated, the evaluators came back and
gave us their report, there was a decision made, and there was absolutely
no influence, and no thought throughout that whole process over who should
the winner be."

Alot of the criticism, he claimed, is actually criticism of the outcome.
"If you didn=92t like the outcome, I can understand that. Some people win
and some people lose, but I don=92t think it justified the process was
flawed."

Process
The difficulty - and a major issue with ICANN - is that there while the
process itself is open for comment, for one reason or another, people
failed to provide significant input until the process was completed and
the decision made. In the case of dot-net, large changes were made
unilaterally by ICANN staff but these were either not noticed or not
commented upon during the period made available for feedback.

Picking on one small point, Twomey explained: "We put the RFP up for
comment. Nobody wrote in and said 'hang on one of the principles of the
RFP should be to ensure that dot-net is held outside the United States'.
We didn't even get that to consider to put into it."

Twomey accepted there was a problem with communication. "There is an issue
about that at the moment. We've got to work more on ways of getting more
people participating. It is a bit frustrating. We've got to run a proper
process but we=92ve also got to be an efficient process. We can't put some
principle in that says 'well we won't stop this until we have 60
responses'. We've got to say the process of consultation will last four
weeks or six weeks and once you get that period of time, it's over."

And as an example of how ICANN is trying to improve, he refers to the
ongoing strategic planning process. "We are doing a process in three
languages - English, French and Spanish. We are using a group software
process where people can come in and can respond in immediate terms what
they think. We=92re trying to use these sorts of tools, challenging people
to come, to force the feedback rather than post the document waiting for
responses, not get many responses, go to a meeting and get savaged.
There=92s something broken about that so we're going to try to find an
alternative, use alternative tools."

Budget woes
Another bone of contention is ICANN's budget. The projected budget for
2005 was double the previous year at $15.8m, causing significant anger in
the community who accused ICANN of empire building and who will be asked
to stump up the money for it. Now it appears even that figure was
conservative with it expected to come in at $23m, possibly even more.

The outcry has caused the ICANN Board to promise to hold back several
programmes - in particular spending on regional offices - until agreement
is reached with all constituent parts. Twomey is unrepentent.

"One of the things you have to be careful with in the internet community
and ICANN is that there's a great ease in saying =91we=92re got to do this,
this, this, this and this=92. The meeting finishes and I sit there thinking
'oh well there's another two million dollars worth of costs, I don't know
what I'm going to do'. That happens a lot. I mean, a lot of people want a
whole lot of things - and you've got to pay for it somehow or other."

Twomey denies the empire building accusation. "Sheez, if I wanted to build
a financial empire I'd go out in the private sector and at least get
options for it. I've been trying to solidify the financial basis and get
the budget in place. That's not because I want to build any damn empires."

As for widening ICANN to the rest of the world, Twomey sees it as vital.
"Part of our experience of having people working in Europe is being in
timezones. It's a big issue if people can ring someone in their own
timezone and deal with in their same timezone. It's a big issue that they
can interact with someone, it's a big issue that they can interact in the
language that they speak, it's a big issue that they understand the
culture that they are coming from.

"It's also important to recognise that there are communities that are not
yet represented here who want to be represented, but will not necessarily
have the same resources. And that=92s an enablement chance for us. An
outreach chance.

"Nitin [Desai - the UN special advisor on internet governance] has said
that the growth in the internet is in the developing countries. They=92re
going to want to be heard, they want a seat. They don=92t think of
themselves as second-class world citizens."

The future and the Twomey legacy
The next four months are going to be vital for ICANN. It is now under
blatant discussion by the world's governments and in November they will
decide exactly what happens to the seven-year-old organisation. It hasn't
exactly passed Twomey by.

"We=92re now in a very different environment. We=92re back in the fairly cl=
ose
inter-governmental negotiating environment. It will be interesting to
watch in the two weeks in September [Prep-Com3] to see just where the main
players have gone and how the discussions go."

Twomey also recognises the reason he's is on board as ICANN's president is
precisely because of his wide experience as a government official. "I
suspect if you were to ask the Board members, if you were to ask Vint Cerf
and others, why did you choose a certain man as president. I suspect the
choice of who they chose for president was an indication of the Board
understanding the environment they were having to work in. They knew what
sort of skills they needed to have."

Having been in charge of ICANN for nearly two-and-a-half years, Twomey
says he still far from leaving but he already has some reflections on his
time spent at the top: "There are clearly people that disagree with parts
of what they think I=92ve been an agent for. I know there are people out
there who aren=92t necessarily happy with things they think I=92ve been
pushing. But I think alot of people have been on a common view of the
common need, I mean, my real thing is to take this back to the common
need."

And as for lessons learnt: "Three-quarters of the things I=92ve learnt I
probably can=92t repeat in public."




--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel.:  1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727