Thanks for doing all of this, Robin.
- A further response from NMI Secretariat. In it they state that we can
evaluate all Coordination Council applicants and make recommendations to the
Transitional Council, and it seems our recommendations will be accepted
unless someone else purports to be representative of civil society and they
accept that – in which case, we get to discuss with them alternative
assessments to ours. So they do retain some decisional authority but
it might not be exercised or be enough to matter to some people
During the quarterly call today, Fadi
indicated that talks were ongoing with ISOC and he expected a satisfactory
conclusion to the negotiations. Although still begrudgingly in favour of
participation, would it not make sense to attempt to quash this top down
approval process through negotiation as a pre-condition to our
participation? Or is that pie in the sky thinking?
- There is also the
issue of ICANN expanding its purely technical mandate into non-technical
policy matters, and grasping for more solid footing as a global governance
regime. Unless ICANN expands its mission beyond domain names, what
power will it have in the world in 30 years when domain names are
irrelevant? And how will the pairing of ICANN and WEF drive those
policy issues within the initiative?
I have no problem with discussing expansion of
ICANN's mandate. Such discussion, though, needs to be done in the
context of bylaws revisions. It could be argued that ICANN's
participation in the NMI is appropriate under Article 1 (1)3 of the Bylaws
concerning reasonable and appropriate policy development related to the
defined technical functions. I don't personally buy that argument, but
it's not completely unreasonable. It's the next step that worries
me.
I'm not Nostradamus but I don't think
we'll have to wait 30 years for a centralised domain name and addressing
system to be considered a relic of an earlier time. Block chain
technology is already here and as we learn to harness its potential
things like a centralised DNS are bound to fall. My concern is that
ICANN, along with other beneficiaries of the status quo, many of whom are
represented in the WEF, will try to stop the revolutionary changes and
improvements block chain may bring to society and in doing so will become
advocates of dated technology rather than coordinators of the existing DNS.
Doing our best to hold ICANN to it's existing Bylaws limitations along
with active participation in entities like the NMI, if we can stomach the
terms and conditions for entry, is probably our best shot at helping to
create a structure where technology will truly be free to innovate in a way
that expands, rather than contracts, human freedom.
In other words, the long term death and extinction
of ICANN isn't something that necessarily should be feared but for the
right reasons might be the cause for celebration!