Stephane Van Gelder - Comments

Kieren McCarthy: What ICANN is doing wrong

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Kieren McCarthy) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:19:13 +0100

I think you’re being a little unfair to me. It is relatively easy to follow the article, even though the process itself was a little convoluted.

But anyway, this is the real problem: a very large number of people now know exactly what has happened and how bad it is. But what will happen? How will anyone be held to account? Will anyone even admit publicly that this is an example of poor governance?

Even if you were to raise it as GNSO Chair at the next ICANN meeting, you would likely be shouted down or told it is not in the GNSO’s remit, or be put under enormous peer pressure to keep it out of the public sphere. You’d probably be offered a private briefing. Anything to prevent the taboo being broken.

The best anyone can expect is that some Board members will dig into the issue.

And in response they will be told by the staff that some of the criticisms are valid, but they are old news and have already been dealt with. We have already moved on.

Then they’ll be told that there are inaccuracies in the article (but won’t go into too much detail over what they are because they’ll be very minor). And let’s not forget this was written by Kieren McCarthy [insert some slur].

Some weak reason will be given for the delays and the redactions and there will be a promise to do a review, or point to an ongoing review, or some kind of related delay tactic.

And then it will be pointed out that this is really a minor issue and ICANN is dealing with so much at the moment that some things are bound to slip through the cracks…

If a Board member continues to push, they will find themselves under pressure by other Board members: why are you pushing this so hard? Their motives will be impugned and they will find themselves given the cold shoulder by staff. They will find themselves being briefed against on the Board and in the community (and there are a few Board members that can testify to this).

Basically, everything will be thrown at the issue in order to avoid hard questions being asked, and real explanations being extracted.

Once it has then become far too big an issue, the Board members will get their secret apologies and promises to improve and be made to feel as if they have done their job.

But at that stage, they certainly won’t want to embarrass the staff or ICANN: that would only aid the organization’s enemies, and it would only encourage people to do-down the organization. So no one will say anything publicly.

And then you’ll find that absolutely nothing changes.

And when no one follows up on the lack of change (because it was never written down or made public), the impact will be to reinforce the reality that there is no actual accountability.

Now, the staff are not bad people – I worked there for years and have a lot of respect for them and the job they do: they work hard, deal with a lot of stress in a complex situation and they keep a smiling public face despite it all.

However, over time the wrong culture has developed and it is that which is demonstrated time and again in this dot-jobs issue. When you add up all the small, wrong decisions being made for the wrong (self-serving) reasons, you are left with a pretty poorly functioning organization.

This is why the calls for improved transparency and accountability continue to cry out, again and again, year after year. You can’t make ICANN do anything. And those that have been there the longest know that.

So they continue to do what they think is best, and they develop a raft of defense mechanisms for when people tell them they have got it wrong.

Until ICANN is forced to admit it is wrong on occasion. Until someone is publicly disgraced to set as an example for what is not acceptable. And until ICANN recognizes that the longer it keeps screw-ups ‘in the family’, the more this damaging culture will be reinforced, nothing will change.

That change can only come with a new CEO. And whoever takes over in July will have to constantly focus on the culture issue if they are to impact it because it is so entrenched in key people. Will they have the time and energy to fight that battle when there is so much else going on? Probably not.

So how do you fix an institutional problem? It’s not that hard in reality.

First, you stop making excuses and acknowledge that there is a problem.

And then you hold a proper public review of yourself where the truth, warts an’ all, is allowed to come out.

That is what happens in properly functioning democracies – the unpleasant truths are pulled out in public. And things are always better off as a result.

I’m not holding my breath though.

Kate Hutchinson: ICANN playing ostrich

kh@ud.com (Kate Hutchinson) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:38:52 +0100

I disagree with your point regarding ICANN's representation at the hearing. Pritz is the man in charge of the new gTLD program, he's the natural choice.

Additionally, Beckstrom's tenure at ICANN was fairly controversial, troubled by much criticism, and now he's on his way out. Sending Beckstrom would have opened the doors for a lot of questions not necessarily related to the new gTLD program itself.

Stephane Van Gelder: ICANN needs an independent, paid Board!

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:17:16 +0200

Thanks Robin,
I hadn't considered the possibility that California law might prevent ICANN from compensating its directors. Good point. But as ICANN's Chairman of the Board is now compensated, it's probably OK to work on a similar scheme for the Board as a whole...

Robin Gross: ICANN needs an independent, paid Board!

robin@ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:53:38 +0200

Well said, Stephane, I agree that there is nothing inappropriate about an ex-board member continuing to work in the industry in which they have expertise. To complain otherwise is just "sour grapes". To the extent California nonprofit corporations are permitted to compensate directors, ICANN should consider it.

Avri Doria: Kenya to block .XXX?

avri@acm.org (Avri Doria) — Tue, 10 May 2011 22:25:24 +0200

I wonder whether people will decide that a country that blocks gTLDS is an appropriate place for a IGF meeting?

But still it is better to have individual countries block a TLD than to have ICANN act as the censor for the world and be the one to do so.

The.Big.Lie.Society: New gTLDs: is today the end of the beginning?

Truth@TheBigLieSociety.com (The.Big.Lie.Society) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:59:36 +0100

Is a "month" 28 days ? 29 ? 30 ? 31 ?

Maybe a Working Group is needed to define what a month is ?

Should a PDP Process be started to plan a focus group to discuss a BOF that may lead to a Working Group to decide what a month is. ?

Rob: Enough is enough!

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Rob) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:52:50 +0200

That argument doesn't really stand up..

IP lawyers will make plenty of money from assisting clients with clearing houses, sunrises, IP claims, C&D processes, UDRPs etc etc.

It is rights owners who INTA are standing up for, not their lawyers who are probably secretly looking forward to more cybersquatters to make money from.

Adrian Kinderis: Enough is enough!

adrian@ausregistry.com (Adrian Kinderis) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:58:00 +0200

Great point Francesco. What will all the IP lawyers do once all the billlable hours from new TLD's go away? I am sick and tired of the new gTLD program being a money making exercise for Registries and Registrars. The lawyers and consultants have enjoyed a fair go!

Francesco: Enough is enough!

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Francesco) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:28:57 +0200

Don´t you know? INTA speaks for all those IP lawyers that currently charge big bucks to their corporate clients to "protect their IP rights"...

Robin Gross: Is ICANN in danger of overload? Yes!

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Robin Gross) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:18:49 +0200

One reason for the "ICANN-overload" is the ever-expanding mission of ICANN to include governance of new issues outside of its technical mandate. For example, ICANN's plan to create new global standards for "morality & public order" and impose them on the DNS. Perhaps if ICANN restricted itself to truly technical issues, there would be less volunteer burn-out because ICANN policy won't be asked to "do all things for all people". That is a temptation ICANN will have to learn to resist.

Jacob: ICANN Board Chair will be paid $75,000 a year

jacob.malthouse@gmail.com (Jacob) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:48:15 +0200

Absolutely agree. The Chair and indeed all board members should be financially compensated for their time by ICANN.

Neither relying on one's personal wealth nor the charity of others should be prerequisites for leadership of any organisation committed to the public good.

Stephane Van Gelder: DAGv4 out today?

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:21:02 +0200

Good point Kevin, so I guess now we'll see if Icann is a truly international organisation or not

Kevin M: DAGv4 out today?

kevin@domainincite.com (Kevin M) — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:13:26 +0200

That would certainly show dedication to the cause, given that it's Memorial Day in the states.

JANNIK SKOU: Innovation is coming, get over it CADNA!

js@thomsentrampedach.com (JANNIK SKOU) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:59:44 +0200

So true, Stephane

You know our Danish Philosopher Kierkegaard used to say;

"Everyone wants development, but nobody wants change.."

Michele: What's the point of google.aero?

michele@blacknight.ie (Michele) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:35:46 +0100

I thought .aero was strict about who could register domains?

Or has that changed?