[bc-gnso] First post from ICANN meeting in Singapore: Decision Day is tomorrow

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See below or on blog 
(link<http://blog.netchoice.org/2011/06/decision-day-for-icann-the-end-of-the-beginning-or-the-beginning-of-the-end.html>).

Decision Day for ICANN: the end of the beginning, or the beginning of the 
end?<http://blog.netchoice.org/2011/06/decision-day-for-icann-the-end-of-the-beginning-or-the-beginning-of-the-end.html>

I’ve just arrived in Singapore, where ICANN’s board will almost surely vote to 
launch an unprecedented expansion plan for generic top-level domains (gTLDs).  
As the new gTLDs start lighting-up over the next two years, we’ll look back on 
this week as the “end of the beginning” since it ended several years of 
planning for the actual expansion.

After the vote the real work begins: evaluating applications, implementing new 
mechanisms, and contract compliance on a scale far greater than ICANN has ever 
seen.

In a year or so we’ll know whether ICANN was up to the challenge.  If it turns 
out there wasn’t adequate attention to concerns of governments, law 
enforcement, and global brands, then we’ll look back on this weekend’s vote as 
the beginning of the end for ICANN.

That’s because a botched expansion could discredit ICANN and its 
multi-stakeholder model.  Mike Palage likened this to 
humpty-dumpty<http://www.circleid.com/posts/what_icann_can_learn_from_humpty_dumpty/>
 falling off his wall and crashing into pieces.  Now, who’d rush in pick up the 
pieces of Internet governance?   The United Nations and its International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU), of course.

As NTIA chief Larry Strickling warned 
ISOC<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2011/Strickling_INET_06142011.html> 
on Tuesday, “some nations persist in proposing such measures as giving the ITU 
the authority to veto ICANN board decisions.”

But even ICANN’s harshest critics –including Mr. Strickling -- aren’t anxious 
to have the UN and ITU take over Internet governance.  Because as I 
describedhere<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101130_a_tale_of_two_governance_models/>
 and 
here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110327_dot_xxx_exposes_the_naked_truth_for_icann/>,
 the UN is a body where every government has one vote to trade, while the 
private sector and civil society get no votes at all.

That’s one of the things I told a US Congressional committee when I 
testified<http://www.netchoice.org/netchoice-testimony-to-us-house-judiciary-committee-for-hearing-on-icanns-new-gtlds/>
 at an ICANN oversight hearing last month.  I also encouraged the US Government 
to hold ICANN to its obligations under the Affirmation of 
Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>,
 and to stay deeply engaged with ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC).   
(Actually, those recommendations work for any government seeking a larger role 
in Internet governance.)

At the end of the nearly 3-hour hearing, one Congressman pressed the witnesses 
to explain why we needed any new TLDs.  I gave a two-part answer.  First, it’s 
hard to see how we continue to grow the Internet without ever adding any new 
TLDs.   Mobile, social, and local are where Internet innovation is happening 
today, and domain expansion will provide new labels for these innovations.

Second, all present gTLDs are in the Latin alphabet – on a planet where 56% of 
the population uses scripts other than Latin.   The only way non-Latin script 
users can enter domain names and email addresses entirely in their native 
language is to offer new gTLDs in non-Latin characters.

While I still have concerns about the expansion, I have to acknowledge the 
efforts of ICANN to address most of the issues raised.   As with most 
negotiations, a lot of the movement occurred only when there was real pressure 
to bring closure to the planning stage.  It was that kind of pressure which 
forced ICANN to address legitimate concerns of governments and businesses that 
rely on DNS integrity and availability.

Recent negotiations with the GAC show that all of us at ICANN are finally 
learning how to engage with governments.  As more governments get more involved 
through the GAC and the Affirmation reviews, that engagement will grow.

Although I’ll continue to work for improvements up to the last minute, I’m also 
prepared to applaud when the ICANN Board votes on the final plan.  Because 
until we get past the end of the beginning, we’ll never get to work on the 
happy ending we all want to see.

 --Steve DelBianco