[AfrICANN-discuss] Beyond words: Diverse voices and miscommunications

[Anne-Rachel Inné]

http://blog.cira.ca/2011/11/beyond-words-diverse-voices-and-miscommunications/
Beyond words: Diverse voices and
miscommunications<http://blog.cira.ca/2011/11/beyond-words-diverse-voices-and-miscommunications/>

Posted by: Byron Holland

A few days ago, I sat in a meeting here in Ottawa with our IT Director and
Director of Marketing and Communications. These are two highly intelligent
people working on the same team, for the same company, talking about a
common subject. And yet, something was amiss in achieving mutual
understanding. Each was seeing things from his own distinct perspective and
as such, speaking his own language. As I reflected on my team’s internal
dynamic, I began to see parallels in areas that have an even more direct
impact on the Internet ecosystem.

Recently in Dakar <http://dakar42.icann.org/> at the meeting of the
ICANN Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/> and
the Generic
Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) <http://gnso.icann.org/>, different
languages (and I mean that figuratively) were clearly being spoken and
mutual understanding was not achieved. Phrases like ‘very, very
disappointed’ were used, voices were raised, and the tension in the room
was palpable.

While fireworks often happen at ICANN meetings, there was a new sense of
urgency displayed.

A lot happened behind the scenes, and it was, in my opinion, symptomatic of
a few challenges facing a maturing organization.

ICANN is made up of many – sometimes – disparate voices. That’s the beauty
of the multi-stakeholder model – those who should have a voice do have a
voice. However, disparate voices can also lead to some severe, albeit
unintentional miscommunications.

I live in Ottawa, and as anybody who has lived or worked here knows,
government folks have their own language. It goes beyond a vocabulary rife
with acronyms; every message, every sentence (to us outsiders, anyway) is
nuanced and massaged. Contrast this to the direct nature of private sector
players, Registrar and others, in the Internet world.  These are “chronic
entrepreneurs,” folks who look for the most efficient, pragmatic solution,
often bred in the wide open early days of the Internet. When these two
groups get together, the potential for miscommunication is enormous.   Each
speaks the same language, but the “dialects” of their cultural groupings
can be quite different.

The law enforcement community has been calling on Registrars for a long
time to curb criminal use of the domain name system. This issue has finally
come to a head with the blowout at the meeting of the GAC and the GNSO, who
represent the interests of the Registrar community at ICANN, and subsequent
meetings between the GNSO and other groups.

Law enforcement first introduced a set of recommendations in a document
called, appropriately, ICANN Law Enforcement Due Diligence
Recommendations<http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_law_enforcement_due_diligence_recommendations_and_fundamental_rights/>,
to curb illegal activity on the Internet in 2009, and these recommendations
were endorsed by the GAC in 2010.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group, a sub-group of the GNSO, had a discussion
at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in June 2011 about implementing the law
enforcement recommendations. There was a clear miscommunication at that
time, because in Dakar the GAC were convinced that the Registrars would be
returning in Dakar to report on progress toward implementing in short order
nine of the 12 recommendations.

When the Registrars came back with an update on implementing just three of
the recommendations (and at that, they were the three most minor of the
bunch), the GAC was understandably upset.

In the government’s world, the appearance of making progress can be just as
important as progress in and of itself. There’s no point in doing something
if you can’t show that you’ve done so.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group, I’m sure, believed they were reporting a
major success. They have a point. The fact is, even if they adopt all 12 of
the recommendations and shut down nefarious activity originating in their
respective countries, a Registrar somewhere else in the world will likely
just fill that void. Why make investments, time and money, if it’s likely
not going to make a difference?

In the minds of the Registrars, they think they’ve made real progress. If
you can’t get 100 per cent, there’s no point in wasting time and energy
trying. Most of the good guys are already taking appropriate steps anyway.
The GAC is going to have to go back to their respective countries, where
some of them are facing a good deal of pressure to have Registrars
implement the Law Enforcement recommendations, and let their leaders know
Registrars won’t voluntarily adopt them and self-regulate.

Fine, you can’t get 100 per cent, but you have to give us something, the
GAC seems to be saying.

This was seen by both the GAC in particular, and as a result the ICANN
board, as having some pretty severe consequences, and they let the
Registrars know their disapproval.

But what’s the GAC really saying here? It’s a metaphorical scream for help.
It’s a, “Guys, help us so we can help you!”

Why?

Because governments want – need – to curb criminal activity on the
Internet. If the current structure that oversees the Internet is
ineffective in helping them do so, another model for governing the Internet
will start looking more attractive to them.

Bodies like the GAC, who have been, for the most part, supporters of the
multi-stakeholder model, are trying their best to protect that model from
external pressures, often coming from governments. Fact is, governments are
flexing their muscles, and all of the players in the Internet governance
ecosystem better listen. There are expectations placed on GAC members by
their home governments, and when they need to deliver, they need to deliver.

And there are a few options that are gaining awareness around the world,
such as in moves by the International Telecommunication
Union<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/internet/do-we-really-want-iran-or-china-in-charge-of-the-net/article1796415>to
exert their control over the Internet, and more recently we’ve seen it
in the form of a proposal commonly referred to as the IBSA
proposal<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/17/4901669.html>
.

The IBSA is a proposal developed by India, Brazil and South Africa (thus,
the acronym), calling for the development of a new global body, within the
current United Nations system, that would oversee the technical development
and operations of the Internet. In other words, it calls for the
dismantling of the multi-stakeholder
model<http://blog.cira.ca/2011/10/the-model-is-the-message/>for
governing the Internet.

Fact is, the IBSA is the sound of the bolts being tightened around the key
players. Although it’s unlikely to succeed, there will be other proposals
that will follow, and if something doesn’t change soon (as in, start
listening to each other, Registrars and GAC), eventually one of them is
going to succeed.

In a way, this really puts the Registrars in a no-win situation. If they’re
not willing or able to materially self-regulate, regulations are going to
be imposed by governments. And, it’s in their best interest to
self-regulate. This course of action will be the best for everyone involved
because it will be the path to protecting the multi-stakeholder model.

Many of the Registrars need to better appreciate that the Internet isn’t
the Wild West anymore. It’s a maturing industry, and it’s an industry like
no other – all of the disparate stakeholders have a (more or less) equal
say. And, more and more governments around the world are starting to take
notice.

At some point the Registrars need to realize that they need to start really
listening to what the other stakeholders are trying to say to them. This
not only means listening to the words being spoken but also really hearing
the meaning of what is being said. It’s in their own best interest. I can
promise you one thing – if the multi-stakeholder model is dismantled,
whatever replaces it won’t have nearly as much room for a voice from
private sector actors like Registrars (or any other non-governmental
agency, for that matter).

Coming back to my team at CIRA; we are increasingly sensitive to the idea
that we need to listen closely to each other’s dialects so that we don’t
miss the meaning of what is being communicated. A net gain is achieved when
we broaden our view point beyond what directly impacts us in our own
disciplines and really approach at the situation holistically.

What do you think? Am I understanding the GAC and Registrars’ respective
points of view or am I also interpreting through my own lens?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20111129/411ed813/attachment.htm