ICANN shoots down incoming Cruz missiles DNS overlord ICANN has responded to an angry letter from three US Congressmen accusing it of failing to answer questions ... by sending a letter that fails to answer their questions. Earlier this week, the three senators, including Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, complained to ICANN chairman Steve Crocker that the …
"Most of the questions concerned the decision by ICANN's former CEO Fadi Chehade to front an internet governance effort led by the Chinese government, including what ICANN's board knew about his decision."
The letter answers these questions by pointing out that they are nothing to do with ICANN.
"This comes amid ICANN's maneuvering to take full control of IANA, which runs three crucial pillars of the internet: DNS, IP address allocation, and communication protocol management."
That sentence is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, ICANN isn't maneuvering. It's responding to a request by NTIA (the US Govt). Secondly, ICANN doesn't "run" the DNS. It manages the top level domain names. Thirdly, it doesn't "run" address allocation, which is entirely run by the five regional internet registries. Fourthly, it doesn't "run" communication protocol management. Nobody does that. IANA, an office currently within ICANN, does perform the tedious clerical work of logging various protocol parameters, under orders from the IETF.
"The question of ICANN's unusual arrangement with the Chinese government – in particular its engagement center that is inside the offices of the government-run organization that operates China's .cn top-level domain, CNNIC – was addressed only by reference to the fact that ICANN has meetings all over the world."
What do you mean by "only"? That is the whole point: ICANN deals with whatever conditions apply in every country. China works a bit differently than the US, if you hadn't noticed.
"Crocker failed to address ... the fact that ICANN reportedly pays CNNIC for the space."
Umm, why would they get office space for free? Actually it would be suggestive of conflict of interest if they didn't pay for it.
"'The Board is not aware of any conflicts of interest relating to his activities during his tenure,' Crocker writes..."
And that's all he needs to write. Questions about Chehade's actions outside his ICANN duties are simply not ones the ICANN Chair needs to answer (as Cruz and his colleagues well know).
"As ever with ICANN, its attitude appears to be: we know best and we're under no obligation to explain our thinking to you or anyone else."
I agree with you that the ICANN Board lacks some transparency, and that Chehade himself lacked even more transparency. But they are quite right to focus on dealings with NTIA, their formal interlocutor in the US Government, and not engage in a parallel dialogue with US legislators.
If anyone is being misled I fear it is you.
The senators' letter asks questions about Chehade's decision to front a Chinese government initiative and you argue that ICANN's response - it's nothing to do with us because he's left - is sufficient.
Except.
Chehade attended the meeting as ICANN CEO. And stood on stage as ICANN CEO when he publicly accepted the job.
The concern was sufficient for the ICANN Board to have a meeting about it, during which they considered publicly criticizing him but decided not to because - according to one Board member - they didn't want to upset the Chinese government.
What Cruz et al want to know is: what happened? What systems are in place to prevent a future CEO agreeing to such things? And can we be sure that the ICANN Board will speak up if something like this happens in future, or will it censor itself out of the fear of upsetting the Chinese government?
These are legitimate questions. ICANN's response is actually all the more worrying because they are now free to talk about it but argue that what's done is done and we don't have to tell anyone what we decided and why.
That's Cruz's whole point: there is no accountability here.
Re: sentence about IANA - it's a quick para explaining a very complex situation, It's there to give context. There is no way to write that situation in a short way that is accurate. And the story is not about that process so it doesn't warrant a full, accurate description.
Re: ICANN's arrangements in Beijing. You asked "what do you mean by 'only'?"
I meant that following a series of precise questions, ICANN responded with a vague one and didn’t actually address China and Beijing but talked about Marrakech and various other places that had nothing to do with the questions being asked.
Re: Crocker not addressing fact ICANN pays CNNIC. You argued that this is not unusual because people have to pay for office space.
Yes. But you are either being obtuse or missing a fairly obvious point here. CNNIC is reliant on ICANN and the IANA function to make fundamental changes to its setup. And ICANN is now in a financial arrangement with CNNIC. An arrangement that was not disclosed.
If ICANN rented its headquarters from Verisign and didn't disclose that fact would you not think it was a little suspicious? What about when someone finds out and then asks about it yet ICANN refuses to answer?
This are pretty basic questions of accountability and transparency yet ICANN feels confident enough to simply ignore them, even when asked by Congressmen.
Your final point: "But they are quite right to focus on dealings with NTIA, their formal interlocutor in the US Government, and not engage in a parallel dialogue with US legislators."
Except of course Congress exists to provide accountability. The NTIA isn’t going to hold hearings or threaten public disclosure of wrongdoing.
You are fundamentally failing - dangerously so - to understand how accountability works in the real world.
Your acceptance of this situation is, unfortunately, one of the main reasons that organizations like ICANN are able to continually fail in their responsibilities to the public.
Cruz has problems with ICANN dealing with .cn TLD inside of China. Should the .cn TLD be in the UK instead and the .uk TLD be in the PRC?
Better yet, what business is .us have in .cn? ICANN is not a political or US only agency, lest the entire bleeding internet be broken.
Not that Cruz has a clue about that, hell he probably wants to give the entire internet to private US only corporations, well, those who contributed enough to his campaign.
Full disclosure, I am a US citizen.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
