ICANN and the Global Public Interest, A Contradiction in Terms

ICANN--the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers--and the Global Public Interest, a Contradiction in Terms?

Efforts by some within ICANN to "define" (and thereby "restrict") the term "public interest" is a misguided, ill-advised, attempt to supplant the proper role of governments, and will most likely result in a definition favorable to the clients and employers of the lawyers-lobbyists-stakeholders who infest, and have largely captured, ICANN structures and processes, principally representing domain name industry and other special interests, all to the actual detriment of the global internet community and the global public interest.

Multistakeholderism, insofar as it applies to ICANN, is just another term for regulatory capture (Wikipedia):

"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating." (emphasis added)

A prime example of ICANN regulatory capture is ICANN's new gTLDs program, which was designed and implemented primarily for purposes of making money for ICANN (for exorbitant salaries, exploding budget, staff levels, etc.), and the domain name industry, principally, new gTLD registry operators, registry service providers, and registrars. The dramatic increase in costs to members of the global internet community to defend against what ICANN enabled by adding over a 1000 new gTLDs to the global DNS, from cybercrimes to trademark infringement a/k/a cybersquatting, matters little to ICANN. By the time legal processes have caught up with the offenders, ICANN, together with the registry operators and registrars, have all collected their respective fees from the abusive domain name registrations and do not have to pay one cent to the victims in the global internet community. ICANN and the new gTLD domain name industry, in effect, constitute a public nuisance, making money by enabling and providing the platforms by which global bad actors, from terrorists to cybercriminals to cybersquatters, profit by exploiting the global economy and the global internet community. It's all win-win, wink-wink, for ICANN and ICANN's partners (@5:35 and 33:06) a/k/a ICANN's customers, or at least, was supposed to be. Read more at ICANN's Boondoggle | MIT Technology Review, August 21, 2012 and ICANN Damaged a Competitive Domain Name Market With Its New gTLDs | DomainMondo.com. ICANN and its domain name industry 'partners' are engaging in rentier capitalism at its worst--"as the economy becomes more and more about information, the crucial ends of capital holders is to take things that could [and should] belong to the commons and instead appropriate them as property rights and sell them off..." 

"ICANN is an organization rooted in the private sector (including civil society) with governments in an advisory capacity. In the Affirmation of Commitments of 2009, ICANN committed itself to act in the global public interest. ICANN is a bottom-up organisation which has its origins in one country and is driven by a community that is dominated by the domain industry and other special interests ... a discussion has started in ICANN about how to better understand the notion of global public interest and how to improve its accountability mechanisms so that the global public interest is better reflected in its decisions ..."  -- Thomas Schneider, Swiss cyber-diplomat and the Chairman of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC); Geneva Digital Watch: Issue 5, November 2015 (pdf),(links and emphasis added).

Contrast ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker's letter below with ICANN's current denial in a U.S. District Court of any public interest in new gTLD applications and processes, i.e., the new gTLD guidebook, which resulted from ICANN policy-making! See News Review: dotAFRICA, Public Interest, Judge Holds ICANN Accountable | DomainMondo.com.

ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker's letter to GNSO Council Chair James Bladel, 12 April 2016 (emphasis added):

"... historically at ICANN, there has been no explicit definition of the term “global public interest,” the Board has understood the term within the context of Paragraph 3 of the [ICANN] Articles of Incorporation:

“In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation [ICANN] shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv).” (emphasis added)

"... Future conversation and work on exploring the public interest within ICANN’s remit will require
global, multistakeholder, bottom-up discussion and I am glad to see the GNSO Council, along with other groups, is already taking a keen interest in these next steps."--Letter embedded below (yellow highlighting added):

Resources:

• Exploring the Public Interest within ICANN's Remit Home - Exploring the Public Interest within ICANN's Remit - WIKI Page (information, resources, links)
• The Public Interest Mailing List Archives

See also on Domain Mondo:

• News Review: dotAFRICA, Public Interest, Judge Holds ICANN Accountable 17 Apr 2016
• ICANN Accountability, What Is The Global Public Interest (GPI)? 23 Dec 2015
• ICANN, Domain Industry, Special Interests, and the Global Public Interest 4 Nov 2015
• ICANN, Public Interest, New gTLDs Registry Operator Code of Conduct 12 Aug 2015
• ICANN, Dysfunction, the Public Interest, and the IANA Transition 7 Apr 2015
• ICANN, the Internet, and Acting in the Global Public Interest 16 Mar 2015
• ALAC Call for Freeze on New gTLDs, Safeguards, Public Interest, All Disregarded by ICANN 15 Dec 2014
• Tim Berners-Lee on ICANN, new gTLDs, public interest 18 May 2014

Below is the slide Presentation from ICANN 55, Marrakech, March 7, 2016, Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit:



Session Overview: Discussions on the topic of the "public interest within ICANN's remit" and potential definitions of this term have been ongoing for years. In 2013-2014, the Strategy Panel on Public Responsibility Framework, led by Nii Quaynor, explored this topic. Based on community input at sessions and webinars, the Panel defined the global public interest in relation to the Internet as: "ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." While some recommended the report, at individual and ICANN meetings, and at ICANN 52 in particular, it is evident there is a need and a desire to revisit this topic. Given limits on bandwidth for additional projects, and given the intense focus on other ongoing dialogues, a wikispace was established as a resource space for all to populate with background documents that will be useful in guiding this conversation forward. As set out in the ICANN Operating and Strategic Plans, ICANN will be facilitating a conversation in Financial Year 16 to explore the "public interest" within ICANN's mission and mandate, and this High Interest Session will form an important part of this work.

Archival Media of March 7, 2016, ICANN55 "Public Interest" Session: 
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Adobe Connect: Full [EN] Virtual Meeting Room Stream Archive English
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Livestream: Full [EN] Virtual Meeting Room Stream Archive English
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [AR] Audio Stream Archive العربية
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [EN] Audio Stream Archive English
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [ES] Audio Stream Archive Español
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [FR] Audio Stream Archive Français
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [PT] Audio Stream Archive Português
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [RU] Audio Stream Archive Русский
Exploring the "Public Interest" Within ICANN's Remit | Audio: Full [ZH] Audio Stream Archive 简体中文


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

China, ICANN, Domain Names, Lies, Facts, Hype, Truth (video)

3 TRUE or FALSE Questions:

1. Is China's .CN the world's largest ccTLD (country code top-level domain) bypassing Germany's .DE, as recently claimed by the government of China and its official press agency?

2. Is it really true that new gTLD .XYZ "is now the 6th most registered Top Level Domain name" as recently claimed by one domaining blogger?

3. Is it true that ICANN adding hundreds of unwanted, unneeded new gTLDs to the global DNS actually reduces cybersquatting as claimed by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade?

The answers:
1. FALSE -- see Domain Tools: .CN is the 4th largest ccTLD in the world (after .TK, .DE, .UK)
2. FALSE -- see Domain Tools:  .XYZ is the 22nd most registered "Top Level Domain name."
3. FALSE -- see ....There Is A Lot Of Cybersquatting Going On In The New gTLDs ...

Conclusion? There is a lot of lying or "hype" going on when it comes to domain names--in the domain name industry, at ICANN, and elsewhere. That is one reason (of many) why the editor of Domain Mondo recently urged ICANN (pdf) to stop being in denial and start publishing daily accurate statistics so stakeholders and the general public can make informed decisions about domain names and what is going on in the global domain name marketplace. Apparently ICANN didn't like the comment of Domain Mondo since it unilaterally decided to extend the comment period from January 8th to January 22nd. That's typical ICANN dysfunction--when ICANN gets answers it doesn't like, it moves the goal posts. ICANN needs to stop serving just the "new gTLD domain name industry" and start serving the "global public interest."

Here's something else that may be another embarrassment to ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade and his pandering to the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the government of China--



Missing Booksellers Mystery Rattles Hong Kong, China Involved? (video above)| Financial Times - FT World - "The widely held suspicion is that the five publishers have been taken to China by security forces. The FT's Ben Bland says the lack of clarity about what happened is stoking fears about increased interference in Hong Kong affairs." (FT.com, 10 Jan 2016)

Tweets about Missing Booksellers

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Accountability, What Is The Global Public Interest (GPI)?

A dispute is brewing between the ICANN Board of Directors and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)--which is part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process--over the definition of, or application of, the term "global public interest" (GPI) as it applies to the CCWG-Accountability proposal.

The term global public interest is used in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation as set out by Board Member Bruce Tonkin in his response below to the question recently asked by the CCWG-Accountability:

CCWG-Accountability Question: "What are the legal basis and criteria  by which the Board considers a given Recommendation to be contrary to the Global Public Interest? Clarification would really be useful to help our group, but also the Chartering Organizations, to check our own recommendations."

Response from the Board Liaison (Bruce Tonkin): "Coming to an agreed definition of the global public interest is part of ICANN’s strategic plan. It is the 5th of five strategic initiatives: “Develop and implement a global public interest framework bounded by ICANN’s mission.” Until this is done, the Board is guided by the global public interest as set out in our Articles of Incorporation: "... in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, ICANN shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by

(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;

(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;

(iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;

(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system;

and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)."

By inference therefore any specifics of a proposal that could result in limiting ICANN’s ability to deliver on this role is a concern to the ICANN Board."

One Comment, of several, in Reply by one CCWG-Accountability participant:

"With respect Bruce, that is not responsive.  Your last statement that " any specifics of a proposal that could result in limiting ICANN’s ability to deliver on this role is a concern to the ICANN Board" is a truism -- but there are many things that might limit your ability (lack of funding say) that are not in any way connected to the global public interest.  You cannot possibly mean that if the Board thinks it limits ICANN it is, by definition, not in the GPI -- or if you do mean that then the Board has a very, very inflated sense of itself and the relative importance of its mission.

"Likewise there are many things in the global public interest that would improve (or at least not diminish) ICANN's ability to deliver the services it is tasked with delivering.   You can't possibly be saying that things which are affirmatively in the global interest (greater diversity, for example) are not in ICANN's definition of GPI if they can be judged by ICANN to interfere with its operations.   That, in effect, gives the Board a veto to say that it if adversely effects us, it can't be in the GPI -- even when the broader definition of GPI clearly suggests that it is.

"The Board's objection to enhanced transparency (in its comments on the Third Proposal) is a perfect example of this latter case -- the Board substituting its own judgement of what is good for ICANN for a judgment of what is in the GPI.  I am more than willing to agree that greater transparency might impose greater process restrictions on Board activity and thus, in some perverse sense, be read to "limit ICANN's ability to deliver" its services -- by putting in more restrictions on what the Board can do.  But for the Board to equate that with a restriction that is contrary to the GPI is to mistake ICANN for the globe and ICANN's interests for those of the people it serves.

"I continue to be dismayed at this type of response from the Board which reflects a lack of understanding of what the accountability project is all about."

See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN, Domain Industry, Special Interests, and the Global Public Interest - excerpt:

... The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition [of "Public Interest"] is likely to result in unintended consequences .... Meaning of public interest | ALRC | Australian Law Reform Commission: "... Should public interest be defined? 8.35 ‘Public interest’ should not be defined, but a list of public interest matters could be set out ..." (emphasis added)

Also note the public interest is a term used in the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement between ICANN and the U.S. government (NTIA) dated September 30, 2009 (to be incorporated into ICANN's bylaws in accordance with the latest draft proposal):

".... 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination. 4. DOC affirms its commitment to a multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model for DNS technical coordination that acts for the benefit of global Internet users. A private coordinating process, the outcomes of which reflect the public interest, is best able to flexibly meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users. ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally. To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform and publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive or negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS .... 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders...."

See also on Domain Mondo: 

• IANA Transition: ICANN Accountability CCWG Timeline Going Forward
• Caveat ICANN: FIFA Bans Blatter and Platini For Conflict of Interest (video)
• What ICANN CEO Chehade Has Been Up To: WSIS, Wuzhen Initiative

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

IANA Transition: ICANN Accountability CCWG Timeline Going Forward

UPDATES: 1. Interview with ICANN CEO and 2. Article by 2 CCWG participants says Congress Should Reject ICANN Transition Proposal unless changes are made--

Above: NPR Interview with ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade (December 21, 2015)
U.S. Prepares To Relinquish Oversight Of Internet To International Body : NPR: "Do you think this will really happen next year? Your group had a meeting in Dublin this fall and came away with some questions about whether this is really on track. ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade: "We are on track, and it seems like we will deliver the final proposal to the U.S. government in January of 2016.""

But see Congress Should Reject ICANN Transition Proposal Unless Significant Changes Are Made (by CCWG-Accountability participants Brett Schaefer & Paul Rosenzweig), December 22, 2015: ".... The NTIA has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.” This is the correct perspective. ICANN accountability and insulation from undue government influence is critically important to the future vitality, stability, and openness of the Internet. It is far better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time."

CCWG-Accountability "Potential" Timeline

Will the ICANN Board be able to forward to the US government (NTIA) a proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition by the target date January 22, 2016? It appears doubtful based on the status of the work of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).

ICANN's CCWG-Accountability met Tuesday, December 22, 2015, following the close of the comment period on the Third Draft Proposal. Notes, Transcript, and Recording of the meeting are (or will be) posted here.

Here are the highlights:

80 comments to the Third Draft Proposal. Download page here.
4 Chartering Organizations sent in comments (GAC, ALAC, ASO, SSAC). GNSO "aims to have a
consolidated position statement by the middle of January. The GNSO Council will have 2 calls in early January and plans to have a motion by January 14. Most GNSO SGs and Cs have submitted direct comments, but these will be consolidated in early January."

CCWG work going foward:

• Issues will require substance discussions to identify common way forward
• We will focus on easy-to-fix issues as a priority and then focus on complex issues. Draft analysis will help us structure our work. 
• Per our Charter - we will need to consider whether supplemental draft, public comment needed. 
• We should not wait for January 14 (foreseen GNSO submission) to conduct assessment. We already have received a number of submissions from GNSO constituencies. 
• Unrealistic to expect that potential supplemental report will be published by January 7. We will need to consider whether there is a need to increase frequency of calls or need to set up subgroups to address topics.

Action Items/Notes:

• ICANN staff to provide geographic statistics (as to comments made)
• Remind Bruce Tonkin (ICANN Board) of request (re GPI - Global Public Interest) and provide an assessment of Board comments
• Mission, Commitments & Core Values: "we have fundamental divide about potential unintended consequences." ... Different camps: 1) ICANN should not engage in any activity related to content regulation; 2) ICANN must be in a position to do so. How can we reconcile these differences? Suggestion to consider attempt mitigation friction by adding language that limits risk of ICANN exercising monopoly. Where contractory voluntary offers limits. 
• Co-Chairs/Becky Burr to discuss with external counsel whether there are ways to use competition law in trying to mitigate friction.
• Becky Burr to send update to group next week
• Request Advisors' input on GPI
• Add GPI rationale to report
• Steve del Bianco to follow up (Stress Test 18)

Documents:

Milestones.pdf
CCWG Draft Proposal_Annex05_Nov.30.2015.pdf
Stress Test 18.pdf

CCWG Timeline:

• 21 December: Public comment officially closed

• 24 December: Staff to send comments spreadsheet to Co-Chairs

• 26-30 December: Staff to prepare Draft Analysis Report of public comments

• 3 January: Staff to send Draft Analysis Report to Co-Chairs

• 5 January: Staff to obtain Co-Chairs comments and to make final edits to Draft Analysis

• 7 January (probably a later date per CoChair see above) : CoChairs/Rapporteurs to post Draft Analysis Report for CCWG-ACCT review

Next CCWG meeting: Tuesday, 5 January 19:00 - 21:00 UTC | meeting schedule here | online via Adobe Connect (open to silent "observers") icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/

See also on Domain Mondo: 

• ICANN Accountability, What Is The Global Public Interest (GPI)?
• ICANN Webinars Dec 2, CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal (slides)
• Caveat ICANN: FIFA Bans Blatter and Platini For Conflict of Interest (video)
• What ICANN CEO Chehade Has Been Up To: WSIS, Wuzhen Initiative

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Open Forum at IGF 2015: IANA, Globalization, Accountability, Trust

Video above: IGF2015 Day 2: ICANN Open Forum

ICANN OPEN FORUM Transcript, IGF2015, Nov 11, 2015: "The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record."

Transcript excerpts (for full transcript go to link above)(emphasis added):

DR. STEVE CROCKER (ICANN Board Chairman):  Good morning, everybody.  It's a pleasure to be here.  The ability and the pleasure of being here is that among other things, Brazil is a country that fervently backs the multi   that so many of us view as a model for internet governance.  We're forever looking forward to the future as I mentioned last year's meeting in Istanbul.  Let's take a minute and look back briefly at the events of the past year.

First of all, about the IGF, we're pleased that WSIS + 10 review draft UN resolution released last week called for an extension of the IGF for another 10 years.  That's great.  Major point of discussion of the meeting and one of the big accomplishments. The draft resolution also recognizes the need for all stakeholders to engage in dialogue in Internet Governance issues, which is of course what the IGF's all about.

ICANN has consistently been a strong supporter of the IGF since its inception, increased its support over the past 10 years; and it views IGF as a positive example for stimulating constructive dialogue on Internet topics on global multistakeholder community.  We're active in IGF at all leaves east, presenting in the dialogue and initiatives presented threw these forums.  We applaud both on the regional and national levels to garner stakeholders in the development in the developing world.  This year ICANN participated in the eighth Latin American Caribbean IGF August 2015 in Mexico.  IGF called you are oh dig in Sophia, the 11th Caribbean IGF August 2015 in Trinidad and Tobago and the fourth Africa IGF in September 2015 in Ethiopia.

Quite a lot of attention has been focused on the transition of the IANA stewardship and the accountability process.  These have occupied quite a lot of our attention and everyone else's during the past year. It was a featured session at last year's IGF in Istanbul and is featured in a main session of a number of workshops here.

The IGF community was clear that accountability and the IANA transition go hand in hand.  The community's participation thus far has been extraordinary.  At ICANN we have calculated that the staff and Board Members have participated in an estimated 860 or so events around the world where IANA stewardship or enhancing were discussed, debated, organized or planned between March 2014 and October 2015 this year.  That's equivalent of almost 45 events per month.  We're thinking of taking on our own radio station "all ICANN transition all the time." [Laughter]

Of these events, roughly 520 were joined through global webinars or calls, while an additional 345 were attended in person, spanning over 87 countries around the world.  That's not enough numbers.  I have some more for you. Roughly 300 people have been involved with the working groups.  More than 40 meetings have been held.  And there have been 25,000 or so mailing list exchanges just on the accountability mailing list. While we're able to track more closely the number of events that ICANN staff and Board have participated in, there have been countless people around the world participating in both you numbering processes coordinated by the regional Internet registries and the protocol parameter processes coordinated by the IGF via phone calls.  That's a lot of participation.

These have not all been dry.  There have been some spirited discussions surrounding the transition at the ICANN meeting in Dublin.  And by spirited, I'm sure most of us understand that that means a lot of Guinness and Jamisons, as well. In spite of that, or perhaps because of that, the cross community Working Group on accountability and the IANA coordination group, the ICG, reached significant results.  The latter, the ICG finalised its IANA stewardship proposal dependent upon the outstanding dependencies on the naming CWG stewardship and CCWG there will be a test to see if you get all these acronyms.  The CCWG made real tangible progress in Dublin on many of their outstanding recommendations, notably deciding to focus on developing the sole designator as the legal enforcement mechanism for their new community powers.

It's very important that people stay involved.  We know it's been a long process, but the CCWG's getting close and continued engagement and participation will be the key.  The CCWG accountability will launch a 35 day public comment on their third draft of work stream 1 recommendations beginning 15 November.  That's this Sunday until 21 December.  At the launch, the CCWG will launch a 20 to 30 page high level overview of the proposal, a summary of the key changes from the previous draft and documentation on how the proposal meets both the CWG and the NTIA requirements.  Approximately 15 days into the public comment, that's at the end of this month, the CCWG will then release the full indepth proposal including appendices and process documentation.

Pending no major changes or concerns raised in the public comments, the CCWG accountability aims to submit a proposal to the ICANN Board by mid January 2016. I'm often asked what will the Board do with that?  The Board is committed to transmitting the proposal unchanged. We have reserved the right, as is part of the process, to add whatever comments we want to add.  We have inserted well in advance that we won't add any contents that is not what we have previously discussed.  And it is our firm intent and hope that we will be entirely supportive of the proposal, that we'll be able to turn it around very quickly and to NTIA that it can be reported.  That's the hope.

This group more than most realises that the coming year will be a significant one in the history of Internet Governance.  It's important that we realize the process we're currently undertaking and it is an important part as the destination will be ultimately reached.  I mentioned in Dublin the manner in which we reached that destination will ultimately define us.  My hope is that we remain one of inclusivity and transparency.

Globalization at ICANN:

FADI CHEHADÉ (ICANN CEO):  Globalization at ICANN works on four levels.  At the first level is operational globalization.  And I think the record of the last three, four years shows that ICANN has become, in many ways, operationally global.  First we divided our Headquarters into three global hubs, one in Los Angeles serving north and South America, one in Istanbul serving Europe, Middle East and Africa, and one in Singapore, serving Asia and Oceana.  So by splitting the Headquarters into these three hubs, we were able to also split the main operational functions of ICANN whilst not too long ago, for example, all the legal staff of ICANN was in Los Angeles, trained in U.S. law, we now have legal staff around the hubs so that we can understand and work with our local communities around the world.

We also have globalised our support in this area.  Today, for the first time in ICANN's history, 24 hours a day, 5 days a week anyone can call an ICANN line and get support in all the UN languages plus Portuguese, plus Turkish and get help and support into the ICANN operations. We have also partnering with certain communities very successfully, for example, in South Korea. We are working with the local community to localise our materials.  And this is not just about translation of what we do.  This is also in preparing briefs in local languages that help the people in that region understand what we're doing and contribute to what we're doing.  This initiative in South Korea is being copied in other places.

We have also globalised our expertise.  I was just in Cairo on Thursday where we announced the first DNS entrepreneurship centre in the world, in partnership with the Egyptian community.  It is already held    it has already held 12 workshops training more than 100 people in that region on issues of DNS business, issues of DNS law and policy, issues of technical matters.  So these are the things we do to take our expertise and our operations and take them to the world. So that's the operational globalization.

The next level of globalization is to make sure that at the geopolitical level ICANN is viewed by the world as an organisation, as a community, as an institution that is accepted to be serving the world, not serving any one community.  And I think the work of the last few years also demonstrates, without question, that starting here, in fact, in Brazil, in April 2014, how the Brazilian government embraced ICANN and the multistakeholder model and allowed us to move forward with their blessing and with their support to continue the work we've been doing for over 16 years.

Following that, the Chinese government, which for a long time was still searching for its place and role in ICANN, announced at the ICANN meeting in London in June 2014, at the highest level, first time ever in an ICANN meeting, that China is also supportive of one Internet for the world with ICANN and its partners, the IETF and the regional Internet registries coordinating the affairs of the unique protocol identifiers.

And then most recently, and really the cherry on top for us, was India's move at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015 where His Excellency, Minister Prasad sent us a powerful message how this great message of India, an India that is rooted in democratic, open policies that we all support and embrace, is now joining the global community in its support for ICANN and its role as the coordinator of the unique protocol identifiers.  These are geopolitical shifts that happened at ICANN meetings, giving ICANN the geopolitical presence that it needs.  And this train continues now with more and more countries as we've signed tens of MOUs in the last four years supporting our role as the coordinator of those functions.  That's the second level of globalization.

The third level of globalization was to make sure that ICANN itself is independent.  You cannot claim that you're global if your affairs are viewed or perceived as being either overseen or controlled by one party.  And I think it's pretty clear that the United States Government has had a very fruitful partnership with us for many years; however, the time for a unique role for any one government is done.  And I think all of us who have worked so hard over the last two years to finish this phase of our life and to bring to the end the fruitful partnership we've had with the U.S. government and to give ICANN the global independence that it needs is now.  And I'm confident, I'm sure many of you are around this table and around this room, that we will finish this project next year, and we will end up with an ICANN that the whole world can see serving everyone without the particular influence of any one group or one party or one government or anyone, but serving the public interest.

And, finally, to close, there's a fourth element to globalization.  And that's globalising the DNA of a community and of an organisation.  And that's the toughest one.  I was involved in the 2008 timeframe in the globalisation of a big chunk of the ICANN global services organizations, and I remember how easy it was to build offices around the world, put people around the world.  Today ICANN has 30 locations.  It's the easy part.  Building the globalization is the easy part.  The difficult part is to make everyone not just the ICANN staff or the ICANN board, but the ICANN community change the DNA of this organisation to understand our global role and to understand that the billions of people we're adding to the Internet today do not even have a Latin keyboard.  It's a brand New World.  And the world is large.  And the world is complex.  But the Internet is for everyone. And if ICANN is to maintain its globalisation, we cannot simply say we have people in 30 countries or 30 locations; we have to say "we think locally.  We may act globally, but we think, we understand our communities.  We cannot continue to be caught thinking with a U.S. centric or western centric frame. We have to think like the world and we do this by engaging and listening and participating.  And I think we're on the way to get there.  This is a non stop mission.  And I know that ICANN is committed to this.  So thank you very much. 

Question from Peter Dengate Thrush: ... I suppose the question for Fadi is having set those up, what do you see as the next set of challenges and continuing that?  Do you see more offices?  Do you see more people or some other way forward?  I know you're going to be leaving shortly, but if you were to look back in three years' time, what would you hope would have been achieved in that period?

FADI CHEHADÉ: I do not believe that the next three years will require a major further expansion of ICANN and its size or staff. Quite the opposite. I made the commitment, as you know, to start slowing down the growth of ICANN. And we are on track. We have slowed down the growth last year and this year again and next year to make sure the growth kind of levels where we are. In terms of specifics, I do believe we before I leave, I hope we will complete the strategy and the implementation of adding one more engagement centre in Africa. That's something I'm hoping we can get done. Right now, if you look at the ICANN presence map, quite frankly, besides Baher in Egypt, it's a little bit lacking. So we will address that. And the community is now in dialogue to help us figure out how to do this.

I do believe the central theme of the next three years will be set by our Board and my successor, who will hopefully be named early next year. But my sense of this and I haven't thought about this, so I'm being direct with you here is that what ICANN needs to focus on in the next three years is trust, is strengthening the trust in our organisation. And it starts at home of the it starts building the trust between us and making sure that the parts of our community feel that we're working together. We've been rightfully battling. A little bit of mistrust is always good, as professor Hofmann told me yesterday, it's good because then we check on each other. But we need to find that balanced middle ground. And the institution, the community and everything we do has to strengthen that trust so that also when people come from outside for the first time, they see us as a community that may battle, but at the end of the day there is trust in this community. And you've built it when you were at the helm. We continue to build it. And I believe that the next phase will be very important, even more important because we are though now an independent organisation, and the world will need to trust us to do what we do and do it well, inclusively, openly. So I really hope that we don't lose that momentum, that we continue in that direction. And I'm confident, by the way, everything I see in the Board's activities to prepare the new CEO and to prepare for a new CEO is very assuring and reassuring. And I'm confident ICANN will continue in its trajectory.

Question from Steve DelBianco with NetChoice and the ICANN Business Constituency:  Fadi, even if we were on a boat in the middle of the ocean, I realize that it isolates the employees from those regimes; but we do create policies and enforce contracts that affect registrants and users all over the world, and therefore those activities are subject to the laws of the countries where those registrants and users live.  So the speaker who asked the question might have thought that putting employees into country means that ICANN has to ensure that the laws of that country are respected, but that's the case anyway, whether the employees are there or not.  There are special concerns about employees, but they don't suddenly increase the need to pay attention to laws. And, Fadi, your answer to Peter about ICANN's evolution used the word "trust" many, many times and I'm not even sure how that would translate into all the languages we work with.  But in the accountability transition track, I don't really know that trust was at the nub of coming up with the community accountability mechanisms.  It's more about the community if it disagrees with the management and Board's interpretation of some very fluid concepts like fiduciary duty, global public interest.  These are concepts that are difficult to nail down.  And there may be instances where the community as a consensus comes together and says" respectfully, Board, we don't agree with how you've interpreted your fiduciary duty on this. "And that is why the community powers are designed.  And that disagreement has nothing to do with trust, right?  It has to do with a different perspective.  When you're on the board, when the people move from this side of the table to the Board they are now have more of a duty to the corporation than they did before and it's a broad duty to the public interest of the community. So it's not about trust as much as it is about disagreement of interpretation and I think that helps to take the temperature down because we didn't really have a trust problem as much as a disagreement issue.

FADI CHEHADÉ:  When I speak about trust, I'm not speaking about trust between individuals. You and I trust each other and know our intentions are good.  I'm speaking about institutional trust.  So everything the community has done to strengthen accountability increases the trust in the institution. These things are very congruent and I think we're aligned.  That the community putting the right checks and balances within this institution and the community is precisely what makes anyone looking at us from the outside say "this is a trustworthy institution and community because they check on each other, they have a healthy dose of mistrust between part of the organization that allows them, then, to check on each other." So I think the work on accountability is in many ways a tremendous boost for in making ICANN a trustworthy institution in community.  And, frankly, I know the role you and many around the table have played, Jonathan and others, and, frankly, history will show that this is what made ICANN a better place and a more trustworthy place. 

Comment from Veni Markovski, ICANN's Vice President from UN Engagement: ... The globalization efforts are positively accepted at the United Nations. Through the work of ICANN, GAC participation but also ICANN has government engagement team people in EURIC of and Geneva. This allows us to share knowledge about ICANN and what it does to all UN agencies and to the permanent missions to the UN as well as the knowledge about UN and its Internet relationship work to ICANN. This bidirectional constant communication is a good example of how the Internet has changed in the last few years.

When Will the IANA Transition Be Finished?

FADI CHEHADÉ: So just to remind you history wise. The transition was announced on March 14th at 2:30:00 p.m. U.S. Pacific time in 2014. That's when it was announced. That's when the train started. So it's been, let's say, a little less than two years. The community has been working very hard to get a proposal ready for the U.S. government to review and to grant us the end of this stewardship, the contract, essentially. At the moment, expectations are and I'm going to either hear people stand up and yell at me or agree with me is that we will give the U.S. government the proposal sometime in mid January 2016. Any disagreement from those who are driving the bus? Because I'm not driving the bus. Plus or minus. Add a couple of weeks here or there, let's say mid January 2016. And then the U.S. government has to consume this proposal.  They have to study it, to review it.  At the end of that process, the U.S. government should either say they're okay with the proposal or they're not okay with the proposal.  The expectation is that that will happen sometime in the March/April/May timeframe.  So the U.S. government has always said they need 60 to 90 days to do that.  So if you add 60 to 90 days to mid January, then you're looking at mid March to mid April.  That's at least the current plan. And then after that, we are just implementing the proposal.  And at the moment, our community has looked at the implementation and believe that we will complete it on time before the contract expires on the 30th of September, 2016.  Naturally.  The contract will expire naturally at that point. If we're not done, or if the implementation is not done, then 30 days or so prior to September 30th, 2016, the U.S. government could either in agreement with us or unilaterally extend the contract further.  At the moment, no one is expecting this will occur, but it could and that's what we're working against. I hope we answered your question and thanks for your patience through the process.  We're working hard to get it done.

See also on Domain Mondo: IGF 2015 Workshop on the IANA Stewardship Transition (video)


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

The Guy Who Should Be Running ICANN, and CCWG-Accountability!

Every once in a while, if you listen closely, there is actually someone in an ICANN meeting who says something that makes sense, that is not just self-promoting hot air, posturing, selling, or lobbying. Such a rare event occurred Monday, October 19, 2015, during the CCWG-Accountability (Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) public engagement session during the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin, Ireland:

"Bertrand de La Chapelle for the record.

"I want to continue briefly on what I said this morning, and I want in advance to apologize. I know it is difficult to come in at a late stage in the process. I understand there has been a lot of discussions, but I may be like a few other people here, somebody who knows about the internal functioning of ICANN but has not necessarily dedicated a lot of time following the work. So bear with me for just one second.

"My concern with the way it is presented today is that the conditions under which the recalling or the removal of one particular [ICANN] Board Member is envisaged in my view should be for failing to fulfill the responsibilities as a Board Member. That includes a nonexhaustive list--Conflict-of-interest issue, it can be a lack of fiduciary duty, it can be a behavior that has a particular--is an element of misbehavior.

"I do not think that not following whatever position an SO [Supporting Organization] may have on one topic is a misbehavior for an ICANN Board Member. This is not what I understand is the function of the [ICANN] Board.

"We collectively as a group and as a whole community create a body that is a collegial body, and I am concerned about the notion that somebody who has been elected by a particular constituency is entirely and exclusively representing the positions of this constituency. In a certain way, and I was making the comparison earlier today in a private conversation, this is one of the problems that we're witnessing in the European Union where governments are considering that their commissioner is there to represent their community. This is the European Union at the moment and I think this is a potential danger for ICANN.

"I think the Board Members should become extremely independent when they are designated and held accountable for that's misbehavior as a board member and not as the representative only of the community.

"I think if there is a list of explicit causes, whether you name it "causes" or not, it's okay, but if it is a completely open-ended thing, it is replacing accountability by oversight. And I do not think the community is above the Board. The Board is responsible to the community. That is different.

"And the final point is there are actually three elements that are slightly distinct and confused here. One is the responsibility of a Board Member towards the Community it comes from. The second is the responsibility of a Board Member to the organization. and the Third, which is always conflated with the second, and I think it's wrong, is the responsibility of the Board Member to the global public interest.

"There are situations where the duty of a board member, in my view, and I agree that not everybody may share that, the duty of a board member is to think about the global public interest first, the interest of the community -- of the corporation second, and the fulfillment of the coordination with its originating constituency [third]. but it [the global public interest] is a higher task, and it's a higher calling than just carrying whatever position their community may have at one point."

>>Thomas Rickert: thanks, Bertrand.

[applause ] (emphasis and link added)

@bdelachapelle - Diplomat, entrepreneur and multi-stakeholder activist. Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Project. Former Director on the Board of ICANN.


Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN 54 full schedule links, info, and twitter feeds here
See also:  ICANN 54, Dublin, Wednesday, Livestreams, LIVE and Replay Videos

IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, "Has Always Been About POWER"

How to capture ICANN: "The first thing we do, let's spill all the Board members."*

*With apologies to William Shakespeare: Shakespeare's line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare intended it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society. (source)

"... At least the USG (US government) offers some accountability. ICANN's primary active stakeholders are businesses making money off the DNS; most users are too busy elsewhere to pay much attention..."--Esther Dyson, ICANN's founding Chairman, Sept 22, 2015

"Sole Member given reserved power under Bylaws to override Board decision directly, regardless of Board fiduciary duties." - Legal counsel for CCWG-Accountability (pdf) opinion on 2nd draft

"WS1 has always been about power"--Jonathan Zuck, CCWG-Accountability participant, infra 

The biggest problem that the global multistakeholder community (a/k/a the global internet community which is a lot larger and broader than just ICANN's relatively small "stakeholder community"), has right now is that so many members and participants comprising the CCWG-Accountability are engrossed in their own groupthink that they apparently have not taken the time to actually read and analyze all the public comments to their own "fundamentally flawed" 2nd Draft Report which is supported overall by only 19 out of 90+ comments. If you read the CCWG mail list regularly, you will discover that many, if not most, CCWG members are actually operating under the delusion that the global multistakeholder community supports their proposed "power grab." 

Indicative of this state of "denial" or what might be called ignorant arrogance among CCWG-accountability members and participants are the remarks made on the CCWG public mail list by Philip Corwin, who represents a group known as the "Internet Commerce Association," of which major supporters include new gTLDs registry operator Donuts, and other domain name industry "players." Here's an excerpt from Corwin's response to Domain Mondo's post China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal:

"If the CCWG Proposal is a "power grab" then it's the sorriest excuse for one I've ever seen. It is almost exclusively a proposal for greater defensive rights in reaction to ICANN Board/corporate actions, and would hardly put "vested self-interested special interests ("ICANN stakeholders" or "lobbyists")" in charge of the enterprise." -- Phil Corwin, September 25, 2015 

I suggest Mr. Corwin, (and all other CCWG members and participants), take the time to read carefully all the comments to the 2nd draft report and then take note of the following post on the CCWG mail list by the President of the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), after which, hopefully, they might actually be more "informed and enlightened" and less consumed by their own "ignorant arrogance"--

"WS1 has always been about power and WS2 about implementation. WS1 was never going to be complete and, for that matter, WS2 won’t ever be complete either. That said, if we have the power to spill the board with relative ease, we can easily reconvene, flesh out the member model, submit it to the board and spill them if they aren’t constructive. We don’t need to worry about deadlines, the Congress, NTIA, etc. the whole point of WS1 is to ensure the capability to do just this." Jonathan Zuck, President of ACT and CCWG participant, September 29, 2015 (emphasis added)

Clearly and succinctly said Mr. Zuck! Sounds like a neat way to hijack or supplant ICANN Board authority and bypass any encumbering "fiduciary duties." The use of the word "constructive" above is clearly a euphemism for "submissive." It's all about the "power." The problem, as noted, is that the mostly profit-seeking, self-interested ICANN stakeholders, or "lobbyists," do not have the ICANN Board of Directors' fiduciary duties to the global internet community, nor the fiduciary duty to operate in the "global public interest." By their own self-admission, most ICANN stakeholders are self-seeking, self-interested, profit-making individuals and enterprises, who are primarily interested in their own "agendas" not what is in the "global public interest." That job is usually left to either governments, trustees, or a carefully selected Board of Directors held to fiduciary standards. While ICANN stakeholders should have input into ICANN policy-making, (and I know this may come as a "shock" to some of those stakeholders), they are hardly "infallible." Of course, directors, even though held to fiduciary standards, can still, from time to time, "fail," which is why "enhanced ICANN accountability," in the absence of US government oversight, needs to have "means or methods" whereby any member of the global internet community can seek redress of a Board decision, action, or adopted ICANN policy, which violates ICANN's articles, bylaws, or the Board's fiduciary duties to the global multistakeholder community and the global public interest. The ICANN Board says they agree and have offered suggested "means or methods" by which such redress can be provided. Other accountability "enhancements" or requirements, including, for example, transparency (e.g., record requests etc.), can easily be provided to any member of the global internet community by having appropriate provisions in ICANN's bylaws, none of which requires implementation of the proposed Single Member Model (SMM or CMSM) which, understandably, the ICANN Board does not support.

(Updated October 1, 2015)

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN Strategic Plan 2016-2020, Video with captions

ICANN Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (with captions) -

An animated look at ICANN's 5-year Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (published April 1, 2015), which sets forth five Strategic Objectives and sixteen Strategic Goals, each with Key Success Factors and Strategic Risks.

ICANN's Strategic Objectives:
1. Evolve and further globalize ICANN....
2. Support a healthy, stable, and resilient unique identifier ecosystem....

2.3 Support the evolution of domain name marketplace to be robust, stable and trusted.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS (OUTCOMES)
- Credible and respected industry that is compliant with its responsibilities as demonstrated by open, transparent, and accountable systems, policies, and procedures implemented usingbest practices.
- High confidence in ICANN’s coordination of the domain name system.
STRATEGIC RISKS
- Conflicting agendas of key players thwart cooperation and evolution of marketplace to serve the public interest.
- Loss of confidence in ICANN’s coordination of the domain name marketplace.

3. Advance organizational, technological and operational excellence....
4. Promote ICANN’s role and multistakeholder approach....

4.2 Clarify the role of governments in ICANN and work with them to strengthen their commitment to supporting the global Internet ecosystem....

5. Develop and implement a global public interest framework bounded by ICANN’s mission.

5.1 Act as a steward of the public interest
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS (OUTCOMES)
- The ICANN community’s decision and policy-making structures and processes are driven by a clear understanding of the public interest, including a healthy unique identifier system and marketplace.
- The ‘L’ root server and related infrastructure is enhanced to continually improve the services provided for the public interest.
- Common use across the ICANN community of best practices that demonstrate commitment to the public interest.
- Streamlined reviews that demonstrate the effectiveness of best practices in support of the public interest.
STRATEGIC RISKS
- Inability to reach consensus on what constitutes “public interest”.
- Privacy concerns impact the ability to improve root services.
- ICANN community does not reach consensus on best practices related to the public interest.
- Perception that ICANN is driven by selected interests rather than the public interest.
- ICANN’s structures evolve in a manner that results in capture or perception of capture by groups of stakeholders.... (emphasis added)

ICANN Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (Flyer) from ICANN


Follow @DomainMondo

Frank Schilling's Uniregistry Is An Investor in New gTLD dot SUCKS

"...the largest owner of the Vox Populi registry, operator of .Sucks, is Momentous, a Canadian company. But it has been reported that "its IANA record lists an address in Bermuda for its technical contact and Uniregistry's office in Grand Cayman as its administrative address"...." source: ICANN.WTF? FTC & OCA Asked Whether .SUCKS is a Law Breaker (Part I)

Is dot SUCKS the problem or is ICANN the problem?

Who actually owns that new gTLD Registry operator from which you just registered that new gTLD domain name? Where are they located? Canada? Caymans? Hong Kong or Belarus? Hard to say, and good luck finding out from ICANN who currently holds those ownership interests, whether controlling or non-controlling. WHOIS? That doesn't tell you anything about the principals behind each of ICANN's new gTLDs. With at least one already launched new gTLD headed for third-party auction--see Are Zombie TLDs coming this year? | Domain Name Wire--who knows who will end up having ownership "interests" in these 1000+ new gTLDs ICANN unwisely launched into the global DNS (over which ICANN is supposed to be a steward acting in the public interest)? ICANN appears to be clueless or inept at keeping itself, much less the public, informed.

Case in point: Kevin Murphy at Domain Incite broke the story of a connection between .SUCKS and Frank Schilling's Uniregistry in a March 23, 2015 post:

"“We have a joint venture agreement and are presently handling postage and handling for Vox Populi,” Schilling told DI today. “We are providing office space services to them as well.” He characterized the deal as a “working relationship”. I would not be at all surprised if it’s much closer than that."--Why is .sucks based in Frank Schilling’s office? | DomainIncite

Turns out Kevin's intuition was right--according to an updated Statement of Interest from Bret Fausett, General Counsel for Uniregistry, Inc., it appears that Frank Schilling's Uniregistry, Inc. is doing more than just "handling postage and providing office space services"--

Bret Fausett SOI - GNSO Statements of Interest (SOI): 9) Please list any financial relationship beyond de minimus stock ownership you may have with any company that to your knowledge has a financial relationship or contract with ICANN: "Uniregistry, Corp. [Uniregistry, Inc.] has a non-controlling investor interest in certain TLDs currently operated by other companies, including .CAR, .COUNTRY, and .SUCKS."--(emphasis added)

Which probably explains this:

.sucks uses clever policy to keep TM names costly for brands but cheap for protest. The lawyers freak-out and run to ICANN! Popcorn anyone?
— Frank Schilling (@Frank_Schilling) March 27, 2015

Domain Mondo remembers when operating a generic top-level domain (gTLD) was a "trusteeship" carrying with it a duty to serve the global Internet community--

RFC 1591: ".... 2) These designated authorities [TLD Registry Operators] are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community....

6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from both the old organization and the new organization that assure the IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organization understands its responsibilities ..." (emphasis added)

But money-grubbing ICANN--its staff, its officers, its Board of Directors, and its self-interested "stakeholders" who have largely captured its policy-making GNSO--decided to trash the ideals of Jon Postel et al and the global public interest, and instead, corrupt the global DNS with their new gTLDs program and policy of the highest-bidder, winner-take-all, sale and auctioning off of the global Internet DNS.

Within the sick organizational culture of ICANN, what U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV characterized as "a predatory shakedown scheme" has become merely a "clever policy to keep TM names costly for brands." In other words, ICANN authorizes, enables, encourages (and in return receives fees from) new gTLD registry operators who then have carte blanche to exploit and prey upon domain name registrants--particularly those with "deep pockets." The "lawyers" Schilling refers to in his tweet above are, apparently, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), now also joined by the Business Constituency.  See: Domain Mondo | The dot SUCKS Conundrum: ICANN, FTC, OCA, New gTLD Domains.

UPDATE: see also .Sucks Registry Goes On Offense & Threatens To Sue ICANN For Defamation/Breach of Contract | TheDomains.com  and  Vox Populi Registry Says "Enough" About .SUCKS Accusations | circleid.com

Caveat Emptor!


Follow @DomainMondo

GAC Contribution to the CCWG on ICANN Accountability f2f Meeting

Government Advisory Committee: GAC contribution to the CCWG accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul, 23-24 March 2015--emphasis added--

• ICANN should operate in accordance with a set of basic principles, providing inter alia for:

o A concise description of its limited mandate and a clear commitment to operate within it.

o Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

o A guarantee of its multistakeholder nature, as a not-for-profit organisation with stakeholder communities worldwide, including with representation from developed and developing countries, contributing to a transparent, bottom-up policy development processes, duly taking into account the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy issues.

o Principles of checks and balances, strengthened rules on conflicts of interests, good governance and with clearly implementable, transparent, efficient and verifiable accountability mechanisms. Consistent with these principles, ICANN should have policies that are predictable, transparent, necessary and sufficient, and should institute effective compliance monitoring and consistent enforcement mechanisms.

o ICANN should be based on principles of continuous improvement, with regular community-led and independent reviews of its key governance structures and processes

o Obligation to serve the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet. The concept of public interest should be seen as encompassing the larger interests of the different communities affected by ICANN’s processes and not be limited to the interests and objectives of any particular group or set of stakeholders. In this regard, ICANN should be open, inclusive and with institutional safeguards that prevent capture by any specific sector or community interests.

o Obligation to duly respect principles of international law and human rights, as well as national laws applicable to the matters under consideration. ICANN should commit to sharing information regarding issues within its mandate, as part of a positive dialogue with other international and global organisations working on and with interests in internet governance.

o Facilitating cultural, gender, geographic and linguistic diversity and representation in all of its activities.

• ICANN’s mechanisms for review, reconsideration and redress should be continuously improved, taking into account considerations of timeliness, effectiveness, affordability, neutrality and independence to more effectively meet ICANN’s commitment to accountability.

• Likewise, the GAC is of the view that the CCWG elaborate on the implications for ICANN’s mission and its accountability associated with jurisdictional differences among the actors involved and legal jurisdictional aspects applicable to ICANN.


Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN, the Internet, and Acting in the Global Public Interest

Public interest, according to the Random House Dictionary, is "1. the welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth..." The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales* (see infra) argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest (2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

The public interest | Ethics | *ICAEW: "'The public interest' is used by many to justify a wide range of actions and proposals. However, it is often unclear (even to those using the term) what they mean by this, and there can be a natural suspicion that the phrase may be used as a smokescreen to garner support for something that is actually in the advocate's own interests. 

"Acting in the public interest: a framework for analysis:

Download the summary report
Download the full report
Download the framework template

"From a broad perspective, ICAEW does not believe that a detailed general definition would serve a useful purpose: individual circumstances are too variable and such a definition would inevitably result in unintended consequences. What we propose in our paper is a framework of matters to consider when justifying an action as being in the public interest. Using such a framework will allow those advocating an action in the public interest to understand what they mean, and, if explained, will allow those assessing the action or proposal to determine whether they can support the measure as being in the public interest."

At ICANN 52 - NCUC Singapore Meeting 2015-02-10 - GNSO Council Meetings - Confluence:

ICANN and the Global “Public Interest” (Megan Richards, Principal Adviser of the Director General at DG CONNECT, European Commission)

Background Information:
The Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework (revised May 2014) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf proposed that, “ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet.” The panel’s analysis was discussed inter alia in a February 2014 webinar https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-02-12-en. A Development and Public Responsibility Department was created to coordinate with the community and organization on related work, and held sessions at the London and Los Angeles meetings.

The ICANN Draft Five-Year Operating Plan for FY2016- FY2020 (v.1, November 2014) lists “Strategic Objective 5 - Develop and implement a global public interest framework bounded by ICANN’s mission,” including the development of a “common consensus based definition of public interest”https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-10nov14-en.pdf

At a meeting with NCSG in Washington DC on 13 January, Fadi Chehadé told us, “clearly it's my job to define ICANN's public interest framework. This is clearly something we ought to do together. And I frankly welcome the NCSG to, if anything, take the lead on that.”

see also: domainmondo.com: Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN Board, Global Public Interest

Links for more information--video replay, etc.--

Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
10 February 2015 Transcript: Download transcript-ncuc-10feb15-en.pdf (394.84 KB)

Archival Media:
Non Commercial Users Constituency NCUC | Adobe Connect: Full [EN] Virtual Meeting Room Stream Archive English
Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) | Audio: Full [EN] Audio Stream Archive English

The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in ICANN's GNSO. NCUC currently comprises 378 members from 85 different countries, including 98 noncommercial organizations and 280 individuals. NCUC advocates positions on domain name-related policies that protect and support noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. Among its key areas of interest are human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, access to knowledge, diversity and consumer choice, development, and global internet governance.

Follow @DomainMondo