The Internet governance community is currently working through two separate but related issues: The IANA transition planning process and the ICANN accountability and transparency process. Because they impact each other in important ways, the intent was always for the two processes to arrive at the finish line at the same time. However, judging from talks at the ongoing ICANN54 conference in Dublin, the issue of accountability has received global interest and now faces a longer path to answer the Internet community’s questions and concerns.
The IANA transition: Ready when you are
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) reported earlier this week that it has completed the task of reviewing IANA’s technical operations and developing the next steps for a technical transition. The ICG will stand at the ready once the policy process has been completed. Alissa Cooper noted during the Monday session on the IANA transition that the ICG was on a “quest for boring.” Such a quest, Cooper explained, was focused on minimizing fire drills and procedural surprises. As is common for the technical bodies that work in coordination with ICANN on Internet infrastructure, the operational tasks are more clear-cut in their development than the policies that guide the ultimate process.
Transparency and accountability: Taking longer than expected
Confirming that accountability and transparency safeguards are in place to ensure that ICANN’s policies are as foundationally sound as their technical guidelines has proven to be a bigger challenge. The Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) is faced with questions that challenge the multi-stakeholder model and the very foundations of ICANN. While the “quest for boring” may eventually be the standard practice for ICANN’s policy practices, these days it’s anything but.
To complicate the process further, the IANA transition may become a campaign topic in the US, which has the potential to further politicize the debate. This challenge was addressed during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) this past July, where the community expressed confidence that the transition proposals can withstand campaign rhetoric and scrutiny, and that taking the time to get it right is more important than conforming to the political calendar.
Don’t rush it
How a decision is made, how it’s implemented and how it’s mediated if there is a concern are regular order questions for any governance structure. Answering these questions to the satisfaction of the global Internet community is taking more time than the original plan had scheduled for. That’s ok; we need the answers to be solid, vetted, and approved by those who will live under their guidance. A hasty decision made to fit an arbitrary political timeline does not help this delicate situation; it makes it suspect and potentially unstable.
As we have written many times before, it is of the upmost importance that accountability and transparency policies are in place before the US can relinquish its role in IANA’s three-part approval process. Until there are appropriate checks and balances in place, the technical transition process will have to wait.
For the past twenty years, the multi-stakeholder community and Internet users around the world have been well served by the current IANA arrangement. Now is the time to work through the community’s concerns and ensure that the next twenty years see the same level of accountability and transparency.