Accountability and Transparency Comment

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I looked back recently at my posting for the Draft Plan for Institutional 
Confidence just over a year ago.  And while ICANN has made some strides, I 
remain concerned that a lot more could be done to improve accountability and 
transparency.
 
Translation remains an issue.  I have heard first hand as recently as this past 
Brussels meeting from any number of participants that translation services are 
not available where they are needed most, namely in the non-plenary sessions 
where most delegates – especially those from Emerging Markets and newer 
participants – feel comfortable speaking.  
 
Moreover, even in the plenary where translation is mostly available, the 
attitude of English-fluent Board Members has long struck me at times as almost 
dismissive when people come forward in a language other than English.  The 
language issue remains a barrier to participation for many, and I believe this 
is still an area where accountability demands that our words and deeds match up 
much more.
 
More importantly, but also related to language is the issue of IDNs.  After 
years and many promises, we’re finally making progress on the IDN front.  Now, 
finally, IDNs are coming to the web. However, they remain the exclusive 
province 
of the ccTLDs.  There is no plan to fast track IDNs for the gTLDs used by the 
vast majority of businesses and consumers.  There is no plan for IDN gTLDs in 
the academic or NGO space (.org and .edu).  Why?  
 
As early as the Paris ICANN meeting we discussed this issue.  I was told in the 
ccNSO meeting that there was no preference – that the ccIDNs would move forward 
on a fast track but that ICANN would be looking at the gIDNs in the near term 
as 
well – and that both would likely come to the public at about the same time. 
 Now its two years later and I have heard nearly zero about any kind of fast 
track for gIDNs.
 
I do not believe that favoring the ccIDNs makes sense for consumers.  I’ve 
always believed that consumers want and deserve choice, so having both ccIDNs 
and gIDNs available at the same time was the right thing for our supposed 
audience, global Internet users.
 
The fact is that very few ccTLDs currently have agreements with ICANN.  The 
fact 
is that while a small number of gTLDs constitute most of ICANN’s budget, ccTLD 
contributions to ICANN are shockingly low.  I sat at the ccNSO meeting in 
Nairobi when Chris Disspain urged cc operators to contribute much more.  The 
fact is that the .org, .edu and private sector gTLDs have been the most dynamic 
parts of the web for years.  Looking at these facts, this favoritism for the 
ccIDN hardly seems smart for ICANN.  
 
Accountability and transparency issues are fundamentally about access and 
choice. ICANN is doing better, but I believe we’ve still got a long way to go.

Thank you.
Andrew Mack
 
Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com