ALAC Withdraws Support for CCWG's Proposed ICANN Membership Model

Today at ICANN 54, meeting in Dublin, Ireland, ALAC, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee, which represents individual Internet users throughout the world, withdrew its support for the Membership model for ICANN, proposed by CCWG-Accountability in its 2nd draft Report (pdf). Alan Greenberg, Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee posted the following on the public mail list of CCWG-Accountability on Sunday (emphasis added):

Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015
To: CCWG Accountability
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models

In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided.

Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.

In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order.

Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.

I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.

Alan Greenberg
Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee

Domain Mondo Editor's Note: It is doubtful that any membership model would be supported by the ICANN Board--see: ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015.

See also: ALAC Comments on CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report (September 11, 2015)

ALAC has 5 members on the CCWG. The CCWG has a total of 26 members, plus a Board liaison and Staff representative, plus another 164 "participants."

ALAC's 5 members on CCWG-Accountability:
Sebastien Bachollet (Europe)
Tijani Ben Jemaa (Africa)
Alan Greenberg (North America)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Asia/Asia Pacific)
León Sanchez (Latin America) – CCWG Co-Chair

ALAC website: atlarge.icann.org

Background: At-Large is the name for the community of individual Internet users who participate in the policy development work of ICANN. More than 140 At-Large Structures representing the views of individual Internet users are active throughout the world. Learn more about the community and its activities on the website www.atlarge.icann.org, as well as how to join and participate in building the future of the worldwide Domain Name System (DNS) and other unique identifiers which every single user of the Internet relies on with every online visit. (source: ALAC website, supra)

About the ALAC, At-Large Advisory Committee:

On 31 October 2002, the ICANN Board adopted new Bylaws that established the ALAC and authorized its supporting At-Large organizations. See: Article XI, Section 2(4). The new Bylaws, which were the result of ICANN's 2002 reform process, went into effect on 15 December 2002. They called for the ALAC to eventually consist of ten members selected by Regional At-Large Organizations, supplemented by five members selected by ICANN's Nominating Committee. Underpinning the ALAC is a network of self-organizing, self- supporting At-Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users at the local or issue level. The At-Large Structures have self-organised into five Regional At-Large Organizations (one in each ICANN region – Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America). The Regional At-Large Organizations are managing outreach and public involvement and are the main forum and coordination point in each region for public input to ICANN. (source: ICANN)

The CCWG-Accountability (Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability) is having further meetings/sessions this week in conjuction with ICANN 54 in Dublin, Ireland. According to the ICANN 54 schedule, CCWG-Accountability sessions scheduled for the rest of this week (all times are Irish Standard Time, and anyone can observe/attend by following the links on each session page link below):

Monday, Oct 19: 10:15 to 11:45 IST Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session I Auditorium
Monday, Oct 19: 14:00 to 18:30 IST CCWG-Accountability Working Session I Liffey B
Wednesday, Oct 21: 17:00 to 20:00 IST CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session II Auditorium
Thursday, Oct 22: 08:00 to 10:30 IST CCWG-Accountability Working Session II Liffey Hall 2

See recent posts related to CCWG-Accountability on Domain Mondo:

• GAC Oct 17: ICANN CEO, CCWG Co-Chair, Ships Passing in the Night? Oct 17, 2015
• Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA? Oct 15 2015
• CCWG-Accountability Attorneys: ICANN Already Uses 'Designator Model' Oct 13, 2015
• A Lust for Power: Is PIMCO Like Some CCWG-Accountability Members? Oct 9, 2015
• IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, "Has Always Been About POWER" Oct 1, 2015
• ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015
• China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal Sep 24, 2015
• Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability [CCWG 2nd draft] Proposal Overall Sep 22, 2015
• ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments Sep 15, 2015

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

ICANN54 Dublin info/links | Oct 16-23 Schedule

China has more Internet users than US, India, and Japan combined (maps)

Above: Map  of the Global Internet Community - source: The World Online | Geonet,  Ralph Straumann and Mark Graham,
 Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, England. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0

The global Internet community: the above map shows the total number of Internet users in a country (size of the country) as well as the percentage of the population that has Internet access (shade of the country). It is an update of the Oxford Internet Institute 2011 visualization.

Data and Method: The map uses 2013 data on Internet users and population that was obtained from the World Bank. The World Bank has tracked the number of Internet users per country since the 1990s as part of its Worldwide Governance Indicators project. The data is visualized using a hexagonal cartogram (a distorted map). In this cartogram, the size of each country is drawn based on the absolute number of its Internet users, while keeping the countries’ and continents’ shapes as close to their true shape as possible. Each small hexagon accounts for about half a million people online. Countries with fewer Internet users do not show up in the cartogram. Note the small inset map showing the actual relative sizes of the continents. The shading of each country in the cartogram represents the share of the population that has Internet access (the so-called Internet penetration): darker shades indicate higher rates of Internet access among the population.

Findings:

1. The continued rise of Asia as a major home region to the world’s Internet population. At 1.24 billion users, 46% of the world’s Internet users live in Asia. That is roughly equal to the number of Internet users in Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, Middle East & North Africa, and North America combined.

2. China is home to the world’s largest Internet population of a country at 600 million people. The United States, India, and Japan then follow as the next most populous nations of Internet users with 270 million, 190 million, and 110 million people online, respectively. Even though a majority of Chinese people have never used the Internet, China has more Internet users than the US, India, and Japan combined.

India is projected to overtake China as the world's most populous country in 2028, according to the United Nations. At that point, both nations will number 1.45 billion people. Subsequently India's population will continue to grow until the middle of the century, while China's slowly declines. But India is lagging compared to China in its Internet infrastructure and Internet population. Why?--

A digital roadmap (eiu.com): "Growing numbers of India's 1.3 billion population are engaging with digital technology, using smartphones and tablets to access a range of internet-based services and applications. India is currently the fastest-growing smartphone market in the world, and yet its internet and broadband penetration rates are low when compared with its high-growing BRIC nation counterparts. The Economist Intelligence Unit expects the broadband penetration rate in India to rise only marginally, from 1.7% in 2014 to 3.3% in 2019. According to recently published government data, only 100 million people had broadband connections as of April 2015. Overall internet penetration will rise further, to 56.7% in 2019, from 19.7% in 2014. But for a country that is expected to become the world's second-largest internet market by 2019 in terms of users (totalling 755 million), its penetration rate will remain behind that of Russia (71%), China (66%) and Brazil (65%). Lagging average internet connection speeds—for which India has been ranked 115th worldwide, according to research by Akamai Technologies—will leave India further trailing rival emerging markets in the digital race." (emphasis added)

Meanwhile China's lack of internet freedom continues to hinder its population and economy:

China to Set Up ‘Security Offices’ Inside Internet Companies - Bloomberg Business: The Ministry of Public Security will add police officers at “critical” companies to help boost defenses against cyber-attacks and fight criminal activity, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported, citing a ministry conference.

China to set up Internet police in tech firms | Seeking Alpha:

• China is setting up cybersecurity police units at major Internet companies, a move aimed at strengthening the government's grip on the world's largest population of Web users.
• The officers will be added to help boost defenses against crimes such as fraud and "spreading of rumors."
• Beijing is also discussing a separate plan to build a national cyber safety net, enabling national and local governments to cut Internet access when needed.

As Domain Mondo has noted before (see: Domain Mondo: Domain Name Registrations and the Global Internet Population), there are three "must haves" which provide the foundation for a viable domain name industry in a given market or country:

1. Internet access which is fast (broadband/4G) and affordable to the local population;
2. Internet freedom (absence of censorship);
3. High GDP (gross domestic product) per capita (see map below) or high GNI per capita.

Which is why the domain name industry (and most domain name registrations) are heavily concentrated in North America-Europe-Australia/New Zealand.

"GDP per capita (nominal) 2014" by Sarah Biddle - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
via Wikimedia Commons

See also Domain Mondo: Internet Broadband Affordability Map, A Global Digital Divide


Follow @DomainMondo

Global Internet Population, Internet Penetration, Internet Users

Two major factors are shown in the graphic above: 1) internet penetration (%); 2) total internet population of each nation (indicated by the relative size of each nation on the map). For example, China already has the largest internet population in the world, but lower internet penetration than the US, which means more growth in the Chinese internet population is likely in the future. However, remember other correlations are applicable for the internet and domain name industry (click on map to enlarge).

Trends and Patterns:

• The rise of Asia as the main contributor to the world’s internet population; 42% of the world’s internet users live in Asia.
• China, India, and Japan together have more Internet users than Europe and North America combined.
• Few of the world’s largest internet countries fall into the top category (>80%) of internet penetration (and indeed India falls into the lowest category, at <20% penetration). In other words, in all of the world’s largest internet nations, there is still substantial room for growth.
• All but four of the countries with an internet penetration rate of over 80% are in Europe (Canada, New Zealand, Qatar, and South Korea being the exceptions).
• Most Latin American countries now can count over 40% of their citizens as internet users. Because of this, Latin America as a whole now hosts almost as many internet users as the United States.

source: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, England (UK)

For more current data see: Number of Internet Users (2015) - Internet Live Stats


Follow @DomainMondo

What Are You Selling ICANN? Who Are ICANN's Customers? (ICANN video) Hint: It's NOT Domain Registrants nor Internet Users

An Interview with Akram Atallah on the Global Domains Division | 14 June 2013 -
ICANN’s Brad White interviews Akram Atallah, President of the ICANN Global Domains Division, on the creation of a Generic Domains Division his new role as President and his thoughts on new gTLDs as they near delegation. (June 14, 2013)

Unbelievable! -- in the video above ICANN's President of the Global Domains Division refers (more than once) to Registry Operators and Registrars as ICANN's "Customers". Watch and listen as this guy explains the new gTLDs program from his ICANN perspective and why his goal is to put the compliance division of ICANN "out-of-business" (@2:28-2:48) -- (as if ICANN compliance does much of anything, anyway.)

For more on how dysfunctional ICANN is in this era of new gTLDs: Is It ICANN's Job To Market New gTLD Domain Names?


Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo

IANA transition, ICANN is the problem NOT the US government

ICANN Reader: IANA Transition Away from U.S. Draws Widespread Concern | Bloomberg BNA: "There's a saying in football: "Three things can happen when you pass the football, and two of them are bad." On March 14, the U.S. government -- ahead in the Internet governance game by all accounts -- decided to throw a pass. The receiver of this pass is as-yet unknown, as is formation and the particular play to be executed. In fact, nobody knows who is going to be drawing up this pass play, though I've heard it will likely be somebody with an unproven record. This I think accounts for most of the unease I've encountered in a lot of online commentary about the IANA transition. What we are talking about here is a leap into the unknown."(read more at the link above)

My suggestion for what is being called the IANA transition (the U.S. government abdicating its oversight role):

1. Separate IANA from ICANN.
2. Three trustees (see below) should oversee and govern IANA on behalf of the entire global internet community.
3. IANA should be funded by assessments paid by each ICANN-approved registry operator directly to IANA. Failure to pay would result in that registry's domain(s) being removed from the root (upon due notice to the registry operator and ICANN, and in the event of registry operator default, ICANN having the option to revoke the authority of the registry operator, and transfer the domain(s) to another registry operator which would then pay the delinquent assessments.)

Most have it wrong on internet governance reform. Everyone is focused on the US government announcement. Wrong focus. Neither the U.S. government, nor any government(s), should be directly governing or overseeing IANA and its functions. Neither should ICANN. IANA has technical functions that should be kept separate from ICANN and ICANN's administrative and policy-making functions. IANA's functions have been handled competently by the technical community and Verisign (which performs a technical function, at no cost, for the benefit of the global internet community under its contract authority). Both the U.S. government and ICANN should step aside from IANA. Oversight of IANA can be accomplished by having three trustees exercise the stewardship oversight presently provided by the US Department of Commerce and ICANN. I would suggest that those three trustees be selected, 1 each, by 3 separate entities--each trustee having to take an oath affirming a declaration of principles for operation of IANA and the global internet, including continuous stability, security, and internet freedom. The trustees would be selected, 1 trustee each, by 3 non-governmental sources--I suggest these: The Internet Society, The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (both of which are existing competent global multistakeholder organizations that have demonstrated integrity in protecting the public interest when it comes to the internet and its users), and the third trustee to be selected by the ICANN-approved registry operators collectively. Bylaws to be adopted by IANA would provide for selection of successor organization(s), if necessary, should either the Internet Society or the World Wide Web Consortium be unable to fulfill their respective roles of selecting an IANA trustee.

Going forward, it is important to not only remove the U.S. government, but also ICANN--in fact, it is just as important that ICANN and IANA be separated, and their respective roles be distinct.

It is truly ICANN that is the elephant in the living room, not the U.S. government. The U.S. government has indicated it is willing to give up its stewardship of the internet to responsible, non-governmental successor(s). ICANN is a much bigger problem, and not just concerning IANA. ICANN needs to either be reformed, or replaced. ICANN has made a lot of mistakes and is not operating in the public interest --

U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet - The Washington Post: “...This is a purely political bone that the U.S. is throwing,” said Garth Bruen, a security fellow at the Digital Citizens Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group that combats online crime. “ICANN has made a lot of mistakes, and ICANN has not really been a good steward.” Business groups and some others have long complained that ICANN’s decision-making was dominated by the interests of the industry that sells domain names and whose fees provide the vast majority of ICANN’s revenue. The U.S. government contract was a modest check against such abuses, critics said. “It’s inconceivable that ICANN can be accountable to the whole world. That’s the equivalent of being accountable to no one,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a trade group representing major Internet commerce businesses...."

So what to do with ICANN? That's the bigger problem, and one that needs to be solved sooner rather than later, before ICANN irreparably damages the internet domain name ecosystem by its own inept, incompetent, conflicted, and poor stewardship. But first, let's keep the global internet technically operating in a sound manner -- that is IANA's function, which it has been performing well. Once we have separated IANA and its functions from ICANN and the U.S. government, will be the time to discuss how ICANN's administrative and policy-making functions can best be performed, and whether to just replace ICANN with a new international, multi-stakeholder organization that is competent, ethical, responsible, and responsive, to the entire global internet community and the public interest, not just a few insiders and special interests.

John Poole

Domain Mondo

April 4, 2014

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo

ICANN, serving the public interest? That's a good one!

One can only laugh at the pitiful pleas of Elisa Cooper, chair ICANN Business Constituency --

ICANN Business Constituency: allowing both singular and plural of the same TLD will be an embarrassing mistake | Online Domain: "... there is still time to do this right, and thereby avoid an embarrassing mistake that will undermine ICANN’s credibility at a time when ICANN must demonstrate it is serving the public interest of registrants and Internet users. Sincerely, Elisa Cooper Chair, ICANN Business Constituency"

Dear Elisa, ICANN long ago abandoned any pretense of serving the public interest of registrants and Internet users. The whole new gTLDs program is irrefutable evidence of that.

Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo