The
first step in solving any problem lies in the admission that a problem exists.
The next step is
the
recognition that ICANN must assume the role analogous to that of a regulator,
that it is so
well
positioned to be.
In
its aim to achieve international acceptance as a regulatory body, ICANN must be
prepared for
significant
change that more effectively asserts the public interest as the catalyst of,
rather than
the
response to, ICANN policy. In particular, while the multi-stakeholder model
needs to be
maintained,
its current form should be inverted -- that the public interest bodies initiate
policy
directions
and the industry serves in an advisory function.
In
summary:
●
Denial of regulatory function prevents ICANN from sufficiently serving the
public interest;
●
In the absence of a regulatory authority, ICANN has been captured by the
industry it has
the
duty to oversee, and has become dependent on its growth regardless of
public-
interest
consequences;
●
This situation has isolated ICANN from the public it is supposed to serve,
provoking both
public
authority and the marketplace to actively seek alternatives to an ICANN-managed
DNS;
●
ICANN must recognize this deficiency and assume a role analogous to that of a
regulator
-- refocused on the public interest -- if it is to maintain its position of
preference
amongst
the alternatives.
●
Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator
and driver of
ICANN
policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en]
Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Every ICANN president has vigorously asserted that ICANN is not
a regulator. This is not merely a casual opinion, it is a demand imposed upon
them by ICANN's lawyers. To admit that ICANN is a regulator - - or even
provides some regulatory function - - is to invite even deeper state scrutiny
and attempts to make ICANN into a multilateral, treaty-based body than now
exists.
In a submission to ICANN's Accountability and Transparency
review team more than a decade ago, a number of At-Large members submitted an
analysis that called on ICANN to recognize the obvious and embrace its inner
regulator:
Not much has changed. While a few references are dated, the
paper's observations and commentaries are as valid now as then.
___________________
Evan
Leibovitch, Toronto
@evanleibovitch/@el56