Transparency creates governance conflict at the IEDR

The IE Domain Registry (IEDR) runs at a loss. Its morality has been questioned. They are accused of false advertising, being a domain-wide spammer, incompetent leadership and cronieism.

Michele Neylon summarises the IEDR's operational practices:

Since the "awarding" of a domain name relies almost entirely on the registry's staff subjective interpretation of the policies the end result is that prospective registrants and registrars are constantly locked in an unending game of "Russian roulette", though in many respects it's even worse, as you don't know how many chambers have been loaded.

Does this echo my experience?

As I wrote my last post I took a moment to resubmit a domain registration for Siegel.ie as a Category #6 Publication Name. Here's how my conversation went:

OK--so why the focus on transparency?

Right--transparency is what we expect from well run organizations. It leads to efficient interactions and holds all parties accountable. It is also a cornerstone of the internet.

Did you know that you, by yourself, can change the "Internet"? I don't mean some airy-fairy notion. I mean change the Internet like--make some new way of publishing information--like RSS. In fact, someone very much like you did change the Internet. They created something called RFC 5005 which is modern RSS.

RFC means "Request For Comment." Today there are 5098 RFCs. They cover all facets of Internet operation, from that http:// we use in our website URLs (RFC 1945) to the order of electronic signals we send through our network cables (RFC 2).

These RFC's started in 1969 as notes. They weren't even on a computer--who had a computer in 1969! RFC 7 was handwritten and is only partially recorded. The RFC was to be an idea or vision for what the Internet might be (at that time it was just the Arpa Network). Once created, an RFC followed the process of scientific debate and public vetting.

The RFC authors would share their RFCs at meetings and eventually on the internet itself. They were made for real feedback from other contributors--regardless of rank, degrees or any other posturing.

Fast forward 40 years. The ICANN gives the government of Ireland access to its root host servers--the section of the Internet phonebook that ends in ".ie". Ireland gives a no-compete contract to manage those phonebook entries to IEDR. They state their intention to:

"Promote the registration and continued use of .ie domains" and "the Best Practice Principles of IANA, ICANN and CENTR."

The ICANN being a body founded with the ethos of transparency states:

"ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness."

By, for example:

"Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness."

Right--so IEDR has a stated mission to be like the Internet elite. But the Internet elite don't act like "the elite." They are transparent and open and reasonable and welcoming of criticism. They represent the optimism, rationality and fairness we enjoy in our lives.

And then the IEDR takes a step backwards while trying to move forward. They move towards subjective, unarticulated and unaccountable methods which do not belong to the Internet elite. Instead, they move outside the circle of influencers and those that are praised.

And this creates a governance conflict.

Even the governing members stand in conflict.

If you can drown in 30 mm of water, the reputation of the IEDR--and unfortunately Ireland's perceived technical competance on the Internet--is under a few meters. Oh--it's raining too.