What Does It Take To Repair Trust?

What Will It Take ICANN To Win Back “Trust”? Part I

Some readers may wonder why I chose to raise the issue of “trust” now or even ask what it will take for ICANN to repair it. After all, the New gTLDs have been launched; applications have started being received, and all ICANN official announcements are that all is good and going according to plan.

But many other readers and astute observers of this space, domestic and international, would not confuse the public dead silence we are hearing from ICANN and its insider community or the euphoria of the long awaited application submissions we are seeing to mean that all is perfect. The multistakeholder model, ICANN’s version of it, the New gTLD program, ICANN’s approach on it, and The Single Root and its unique identifiers are all at graver risk than ever and must be saved before it is too late. Only then can we truly claim to be serving the “Global Public Interest” beyond mere words, slogans, and 11^th hour band aid patches.

If you question my opinion on this gravity please take note of how Dr Larry Strickling, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce, concluded his letter to ICANN on Jan 3, 2012 stating:”How ICANN manages the new gTLD program will, for many, be a litmus test of the viability of this approach”.

It is understandable why those in the ICANN community who do see many of these grave risks to the multistakeholder model in plain sight chose to remain silent. Some do so in order not to cause any hiccups or possible derailment to the long overdue, but inequitable to emerging markets, New gTLD program that stands to benefit them, their businesses or their plans. Instead they chose to formulate their message to focus on only the opportunities the new gTLDs will bring, and rightly so, but with little or no attention to their local and global risks. After all, serving the Global Public Interest is not their mandate – it is however ICANN’s mandate per the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC)  agreement with the US Government, to which and to whom at the very least, it should be accountable.

The Global Picture

Internationalized Domain Name gTLDs, also known as IDN gTLDs, will usher the Global Multilingual Internet I have championed and advocated since the late 1990’s, at many levels and roles, to serve “The Global Public Interest” that will empower local citizens.

Readers may be aware that I have also, inside and outside the ICANN fora, created great international awareness of the immense positive benefits of the coming Multilingual Internet that will be born thru IDN gTLDs and the new gTLD program. More acutely, I have not shied away from pointing out the grave risks, some of which remain unaddressed and unresolved. Also, the international relationships that I have created with global leaders in their sectors like Deloitte, VeriSign and others that primarily focus on the emerging markets and IDNs should carry some weight, credibility and validity to the voice of concern I raise, for those who care to listen.

But these accolades do not detract me from following my conscience and beliefs, as I have done over the years, to point out the grave risks I see in plain sight regardless of how unpopular this may make me at first glance with colleagues and fellow ICANN community members. Many are aware that I also have placed serving The Global Public Interest that I have always talked about above any possible personal or business interest. I hope that saying my peace may help save the Multistakeholder model, its principles and the single root of unique identifiers, the 10s, maybe 100s of millions of dollars that applicants are investing in applications, and ICANN from failure, and before it is too late.

The Imminent Grave Risks

Imminent grave risks are facing the Multistakeholder model, the single root, and ICANN itself, as well as serving “The Global Public Interest”. In brief they are:

• ·         The recent Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and trademark owners challenges to ICANN and  the recent US Congressional hearing on the New gTLD program - both of which I labelled “American centric fights while the IDN regions await the crumbs”.
• ·         The renewed vigour at the United Nations regarding Internet control / oversight and its Governance - an issue that was laid to rest at the UN WSIS 2005 but which was revived to a large extent because ICANN invoked that US laws, its OFAC and the SDN lists will be applied on all New gTLD applicants as a universal rule and which first appeared in Guidebook 5 of the New gTLD program - the potential impetus that may very well cause the birth of a new global alternate Internet root, with legitimacy, to rival ICANN’s / American root.
• ·         High level concerns over conflicts of interest in ICANN over the years –most recently capsulated by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and at international levels after former ICANN Chairman Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush joined a group vying to be a serious applicant / player in the new gTLDs space shortly after leaving his post as ICANN chairman.
• ·         GAC - ICANN Board poor rapport over the last couple of years,
• ·         ICANN Board-US government strained relations over the last couple of years that can be clearly witnessed everywhere especially in the IANA contract renewal.
• ·         And the lack of any serious prioritization to IDNs over the years and in the New gTLD program - a plan originally suited by design to the launching of more Latin alphabet generic TLDs but then conjured up for IDNs  with 11^th hour applied band aid remedies, to make it “ok”.  Most recent example being the New gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook and its highly subjective criteria of qualification.

The Challenges these Grave Risks Represent

All the above are high priority challenges that must be overcome ASAP. They have exposed major but continuously growing cracks in the ICANN model of serving legitimate Global Public Interests fairly, equitably, and transparently as the new gTLD program was nearing January 12, 2012, the opening of its application window.

However, collectively they present a tsunami and a daunting task for any board to wrestle with this late in the game and in time to prevent them causing greater but irreparable damage to the multistakeholder model and the single root of unique identifiers and ICANN itself.  They also carry immense ramifications on all communities, stakeholders and constituents of the worlds without exception - none more potently that those of US national interests in continuing to oversee the current Internet root, and maintaining it as the only Internet root of unique identifiers, and without rival.

This brings me back to my title.

What Does It Take To Repair Trust?

&

What Will It Take ICANN To Win Back “Trust”?

A recent Study co-authored by USC Marshall School of Business professor finds: “Nothing beats showing true contrition in terms of winning back trust”.

The study co-authored by Peter Kim, an associate professor of management and organization at USC Marshall and included Kurt Dirks, Bank of America professor of managerial leadership at Washington University's John M. Olin School of Business; Donald Ferrin, associate professor of organizational behavior and human resources at Singapore's Lee Kong Chian School of Business; and Cecily Cooper, associate professor of management at University of Miami's Department of Management investigated substantive efforts to repair trust.

“The researchers discovered that while it is often assumed that substantive actions should repair trust more effectively than cheap talk”, more significantly, they concluded in the study that: 

“Repairing trust depends on the audience's perception of the response”.

The research demonstrated that the key was showing “True Contrition” in terms of “Winning Back Trust”.

How and What Can The ICANN Board Learn From This?

I believe the ICANN Board can learn a lot from this study. I would also add that from my life and professional experiences I believe that “Trust” is an indivisible component of, and cannot be repaired without “Credibility”. And that “Credibility” is an indivisible component of, and cannot exist without “Sincerity”.  

The trinity of “Trust”, “Credibility”, and “Sincerity” must all be present and genuine ASAP if the day is to be saved from the imminent threats I listed above, especially the ones to The Single Root and the Multistakeholder principle I hold very dearly.

Only then can we genuinely claim to be attempting to truly serve The Global Public Interest equitably, fairly, and transparently instead of the mere words, slogans and 11^th hour band aid patches so far.

What Should The ICANN Board Do With A Sense Of Urgency?

• ·         What can the board do?
• ·         What should it do?
• ·         Does the Board see the threats to the single root and unique identifiers?
• ·         Is it possible that the board is complaisant believing the world has to come to it, being a monopoly?
• ·         Or does it see the need for, and want to have a credible, trustworthy, sincere immediate plan in place to make the world want to work with ICANN out of trust, credibility and sincerity?
• ·         How should it act to ensure that domestic and world communities and all those who had lost “Trust”, “Credibility”, and “Sincerity” in ICANN and its version of the Multistakeholder model can once again become believers?
• ·         How can it re-instil trust for others to re-entrust in it and in the model it was the litmus test of?  
• ·         Can it do this in time before the looming irreparable damage start taking place?

How Should ICANN Show Contrition?

• ·         Would acknowledging many of the ways matters were poorly managed in the past leading up to the launch and receiving of application in the New gTLD program that have led to these imminent grave risks be enough?
• ·         What would be enough to show a genuine transparent effort by ICANN that things will be a lot better in the eyes of its world’s audiences and stakeholders, the very “contrition” the USC study points to, for them to believe that this time will be different, that it will be genuine, credible, sincere, and trustworthy?
• ·         Can the Board show enough contrition, in time, to save the single root and its unique identifiers and prove that it is truly capable of serving the Global Public Interest?
• ·         Does the Board have years or a few months to deliver this?

Khaled Fattal, Ankabooot and The Multilingual Internet Group Chairman

Part I and Part II are Editorials of Ankabooot.

Feel free to give your own opinions until we publish very soon my answers to these questions, and more, in Part II.