Untrue.

ICANN to its credit, swiftly took its own advice and is redoing the bidding process. While the outcome you identify is likely, I am content to await and the results of the process.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the sentiment that it’s time to move on. The report essentially found that the actual process should be redone solely because of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the ICANN-GAC interaction while reserving judgement on ICANN’s internal policy process adherence. The IANA transition processes currently being drafted rely upon ICANN following its own processes. This case provides accusations that ICANN failed to do this but does not assess their credibility. This is problematic.

I agree with all of your main points, Andrew, but don’t see how they lead to your conclusion.

> in my mind the biggest procedural error lies in ICANN’s simple inability to follow its own policy

I agree and this is exactly why “moving on” is the wrong thing to do.

For as long as I can recall, the ICANN community has complained that ICANN’s staff and Board are a law unto themselves. And the most vociferous complaints have concerned times when they have not followed or have skewed the process that the community spent significant time and energy putting in place.

In this .Africa case, we have two very big issues and concerns in terms of process:

1. The staff and the Board did not follow the process. In fact, we now know that they repeatedly intervened in favor of the ZACR bid and against the DCA bid. In effect, ICANN decide what the end result should be and then, rather than follow its processes neutrally to arrive at that conclusion, bent the process to arrive at *its* conclusion.

And don’t forget that ICANN has actually signed a contract with ZACR and that it was the independent panel that actively intervened to tell ICANN not to add ‘.africa’ to the root.

2. ICANN’s Board broke its own bylaws. And not obscure bylaws either but ones that get to the heart of what ICANN is supposed to be. An appeal was dismissed twice out of hand. ICANN had already made its decision (ZACR good; DCA bad) and so it didn’t feel the need to have to consider it again at all. As we now know, it was beyond wrong: it was bordering on incompetent.

This is why it is again a mistake to suggest we move on. We had an independent group of three judges look at how ICANN functions and for the third time in a row, note how very disappointed they were. The ICANN we have is *not* the ICANN that we tell ourselves we have. That is important not to lose sight of.

And just to make that point abundantly clear is what is probably the worst part of this whole .Africa IRP saga: the fact that faced with having its own failings made public, ICANN’s immediate reaction was to cover it up.

It actually redacted the final report of its own final accountability process. Think about that for a second.

And when it was called out on that, it then produced a very carefully written explanation that appeared to show it was simply following process. But, again, that wasn’t true. ICANN staff again played loose and fast with process to suit its own ends. They was no justification for redacting the information but ICANN did it anyway. Because there is no real accountability.

What this case shows definitively, after years of complaints without proof, is that ICANN staff and Board not only bend processes to achieve whatever their ends are but that they know they shouldn’t be doing so. Why else redact the information and then lie about it?

It’s ok for individuals on the sidelines to say “well ZACR should win” but it is not ok for the organization that we entrust to make these decisions to do the same. ICANN is supposed to be much more professional than that. And until examples like this one are used to force ICANN to change its behavior, it will never be the organization that it tells itself it is and that we kid ourselves it is.

John and Kieren,

Thank you both for your responses—and please know I do agree with much of what you say.  Clearly a lot of significant errors have been committed by staff, community and others.  And to be clear, I don’t think we should “move on” from the lessons.  Just don’t think holding .Africa hostage for another x number of months is the best way to learn from – and act on – the points you’re bringing up.

Despite the many issues around this debacle, there are still only 3 possible outcomes as you both know: DCA gets .Africa; ZACR gets it; or nobody does.  DCA doesn’t have the geo support.  ZACR does.  Sadly, right now, not delegating is effectively where we are.  And that benefits no one, least of all users. 

You are both correct: “moving on” in this one narrow area won’t address the many failures we’ve seen as part of the process.  It won’t address the need for more accountability and the importance of clarifying roles across the board.  And to be clear, I’m not saying we should “move on” from the lessons.  I too am also very concerned with the way the communications have been handled.  Cover-ups strike me as the exact opposite of the direction we should be going.  But fixing the process broadly and delegating this one string are not the same issue.

In the end, making an example of ZACR for failings of other parts of the community won’t benefit anyone (but the lawyers, they always get paid).  Another 3-12 months of evaluation won’t change the outcome, which will still need to be based on geography (and ZACR will still win). 

On the other hand, for as long as the re-evaluation goes on, the African internet users who want .Africa – a group that we as a community often talk about wanting to support – they will continue to be disadvantaged. 

There’s no reason we can’t be tough but constructive.  Nearly all of the governments in Africa – and that’s a lot – have come out in support of the ZACR bid.  Respect their wishes and use the geo test to declare a winner on that basis.  At the same time, let’s do a useful post-mortem and make changes accordingly, setting a clear timeline for new policies to address or clarify where things have gone wrong. 

You are right, the issue is much bigger than .Africa.  There’s a lot to fix.  However, holding .Africa hostage in penance for our broader community failures is not the best approach – for ICANN or for the African internet community.

Hi Andrew,

I appreciate your intervention on behalf of ZACR but no one is holding it hostage or seeking to. ICANN is resolving the issue with all deliberate speed through its defined processes.

Our (if I may speak for Kieran) issue is that ICANN has cast doubt upon its ability to follow its own processes, threatening to undermine all of its decision making processes.

Quite honestly, I don’t care about the outcome insofar as who receives the .Africa. It’s a competitive bid and will resolve like any other (hopefully). I and most of the Internet community do care very deeply about ICANN’s capacity to follow its own policy as that directly bears upon ICANN’s capacity to insure the safety, security, and administrative functionality of the Internet.

A bureaucracy which breaks its own rules is not a bureaucracy.

Thanks for the response, Andrew.

So broadly I agree with you. Although I think you may be overdoing the importance of the ‘.africa’ TLD: I don’t see it having any real impact on the lives of people living in Africa for a long time. Not getting a domain name is the very least of the internet issues that Africans face.

I would argue that the delays in the delegation of .africa are precisely because of ICANN’s problems and failings. If ICANN had stuck with its processes and behaved fairly and neutrally in all likelihood the TLD would have existed for some time now.

What the ICANN Board has decided to do in response to the IRP report looks rushed to me and is more concerned with how to protect the ICANN Board and staff than in resolving the issue properly and professionally. And it will likely lead to more delays.

Even after it had been heavily criticized for its own failings, the Board and staff just can’t bring themselves to not be in full control of the process (which is what got them there in the first place).

So they are continuing on using the same flawed processes and approach and hope the result is better this time. In fact, in its recent announcements you can almost hear ICANN saying: “Fine, we’ll re-evaluate it but we are still going to end up with the *right* result.”

ICANN simply can’t abide the idea of admitting it got it wrong. So they are going to force a process that enables the corporation to save face. When the issue is finally resolved, I expect to see lots of back-slapping about how “this shows our accountability systems work” and pushing back yet again on calls for real accountability.

An organization that was thinking clearly about its role, rather than about itself, would behave quite differently.

First, I agree with you Andrew, the focus should be on resolving the issue quickly and clearly. And to do that, ICANN should separate itself from the decision and give as much power as possible to independent experts and ask them to operate openly and transparently.

InterConnect could easily be tasked with recommending the fairest and most efficient path forward to resolve the issue and then report back publicly to the internet community (i.e. not directly to ICANN staff). Then ICANN just needs to follow what its own experts tell it.

Then ICANN should take the issues of accountability that have emerged and open a review into what went wrong, why and what needs to be done to fix it. And promise a new era of openness by opening up all the relevant documents. A sea-change in how we do things. That means that the issue of the .africa TLD itself gets separated from the process problems and those problems can then be tackled in the right timeframe.

I don’t expect to see ICANN do either. And it for that reason that I think it is imperative to keep this particular example alive in people’s minds rather than wish it away. It will serve as a true measure of who ICANN is.

Currently, that is more of an embarrassed teenager than an international organization to be trusted with the internet’s domain name system.

This Geographic panel evaluation should have been done by an independent reviewer and professional firm, a respectable audit firm like E&Y;, etc. Interconnect is already compromised for collaborating with ICANN, be surprised if they are not sued by DCA. Plus there is nothing in the process to give special assessment to interconnect their job is to simply say pass or fail.