You can always think of a reason not to do something. Even when there isn't one.
My brother, sister and I always used to refer to my Dad's mum as “Nanny Boneleg”. We still do, even though she's been dead for 10 years and we are all in our thirties. Why? Because, when we were kids, if she didn't want to play with us, she would inform us, quite plainly, that she would love to play but couldn't because she had “a bone in my leg”.
Even as kids we knew that was nonsense, but she was so confident that this was all the reason in the world not to run around the garden that we dare not quiz her.
Nanny Boneleg would have smiled with approval at Paul Twomey yesterday when he was asked why ICANN Board's meetings should not be transcribed and made public, and why exactly it was that the Board members were told not to talk to the media for 36 hours after the crucial and controversial vote on the dotcom contract on 28 February.
“In discussions, a number of board members for whom English isn't even their second language, it's their third language, raised concerns that conducting business in such an enviroment, when you know your words are going to be recorded and used in different circumstances, can put a great stress on people for whom English is not their native tongue and could result in counter-behaviour – which is people just not speaking because they're nervous of not having a full grasp of the language.”
So we can't have transcripts of meetings carried out in English in case what people say in them isn't understandable. Which does somewhat beg the question: how is it that Board members can understand each other perfectly but no one outside can?
Either Board members are making themselves clear, or they are not. If they cannot make themselves understood, how do we know that they fully understand what is being discussed? How how we be sure that their votes are properly considered? If they are not able to make themselves clear, by whatever manner, then it is the Board's processes that are undermined, not the individuals.
This cosiness where it is assumed only the Board can really be expected to understand what the Board discusses is precisely the sort of nonsense that has got the Board into the position it now finds itself.
What's French for “gagging order”?
The exact same reason of language was then given for the two-day delay between the announcement that the Board had voted to hand the dotcom registry to VeriSign under highly controversial circumstances and the statements put out by individual board members – which extended to a 36-hour ban on Board members being allowed to speak to the press.
I had always assumed this was so that the highly critical statements made by some Board members would not find themselves alongside the same news story as the dotcom contract approval story. So, it seemed, did every other jornalist covering the story, with one happily calling it a “gag order”. But we were all wrong:
“For many of my colleagues for whom English is not their native tongue, they wanted time to put what they meant down and review it. Out of respect for each other, we said we would give up to two days to get them done and then post it.”
Twomey also wanted to point out that “it would be unfair for those members more comfortable with putting their positions to go out and talk to the media before the rest of us could go out and do the same thing”.
This is a patently absurd measure. The board decision was made. At that point, any Board member should be not only entitled but also expected to explain their reasoning. Of the 14 Board members, 10 choose to make statements, of which at least five I know from personal experience are completely fluent in English.
Besides that, the whole underlying assumption that all the business has to be conducted in English is itself a measure of how US-centric the process remains – much to the Internet's disadvantage.
Access small areas
Incredibly, Twomey then sought to explain that it was in the media's own interests for Board members to be prevented from talking for two days: “It would not be fair to members of the fourth estate because for you to do your job well, you need to have access to all the positions.”
As ICANN, Mr Twomey, Vint Cerf and every other Board member knows only too well, unhindered access to a few is infinitely superior to controlled access to everyone. If the belief really was that it was vital for all Board members to be able to explain themselves 100 percent correctly, and if the ICANN Board was willing to apply, and to accept, a 36-hour gagging order, why not just delay the announcement of the vote until all the statements were prepared?
If ICANN thinks that providing delayed statements and a short transcript of the voting record is sufficient transparency for the billions of Internet users who they represent, then they really are out of touch.
What's the real problem here?
Here's an idea: let's ask the world's governments and the country registries if they are willing to fund translation resources for all ICANN Board meetings. The meetings, and all statements made during Board meetings, are made available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese.
What would be the cost? Five translators and five transcribers for say three hours a month. Since this can all be done with the latest Internet tools, there is no need for physical travel. I have checked out a number of translators and transcribers online (here's one, here's another, and another) and have come up with the following figures (all US dollars):
Between $45 and $85 per hour for live translating. Between $50 and $100 for transcribing the whole meeting. So, taking a mid-point, you're looking at $270 per meeting per language. Somehow I don't think that is beyond the capacities of the French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic-speaking communities of this planet.
Even assuming that the language argument is a valid reason to withhold Board minutes – which I would argue very strongly is not the case – if this is the only thing holding back the ICANN Board from responding to the huge chorus of people telling it to open up, I can't see why the 18 April Board meeting shouldn't be the first one that finally allows some light in on this dark world.
