Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts

2017-09-10

News Review: ICANN Webinars On DNS Abuse in ICANN's New gTLDs

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-09-10) with analysis and opinion: Features •  1) ICANN Webinars On DNS Abuse in ICANN's New gTLDs, 2) Other ICANN news: a. .WEB Litigation,  b..AFRICA Litigation, c. Quote of the Week: 'no such thing as Conflict of Interest' at ICANN, 3) Names, Domains & Trademarks: Deadwood Trademark Registrations, 4) ICYMI Internet Domain News, 5) Most Read Posts.

1) ICANN Webinars On DNS Abuse in ICANN's New gTLDs
Webinar: "Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs" (SADAG) Study | ICANN.org: Webinar dates and how to attend:
Date: 13 September 2017  |  Time: 14:00-15:30 UTC (time convert) 10am EDT (US)
Join via Adobe Connect or Dial-In  Participant Code: 1429847649
Date: 14 Sept 2017  |  Time: 04:00-05:30 UTC (time convert) Sept 13 9pm PDT (US)
Join via Adobe Connect or Dial-In  Participant Code: 1429847649
UPDATE Webinar Video Replay:
Slides (pdf) embed below:

Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs (SADAG) Report | ICANN.org Public Comment period closes 19 Sep 2017 23:59 UTC extended to 22 Sep 2017 23:59 UTC 27 Sep 2017 23:59 UTC.

Recordings (in English) of the webinars are also published on New gTLD DNS Abuse Review | newgtlds.icann.org. More info here.

For background: Report: ICANN's New gTLDs As Global DNS Malware | DomainMondo.com

2) Other ICANN news

 a. New gTLD .WEB Litigation
Ruby Glen, LLC [Donuts affiliate] v. ICANN | ICANN.org: Plaintiff's Opening Appellate Brief [(pdf) 30 August 2017. See also Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal Regarding Dismissal (pdf) 20 December 2016; Exhibit 1 (pdf); Exhibit 2 (pdf).

"Ruby Glen, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Covered TLD, LLC. Covered TLD, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donuts Inc." (Appellant's Opening Brief, p.2, emphasis added)

Editor's note: Afilias, not Ruby Glen (Donuts), was the second-highest bidder (pdf) at the .WEB auction (pdf). So what's the point of the lawsuit and appeal? Reportedly spite. Donuts (Ruby Glen) apparently was betting on getting a private auction for .WEB from which it would have received more than $22 million as a "losing" bidder under ICANN's authorized "casino-like" private auctions. (Note that the biggest, and maybe the only, profits made thus far with new gTLDs, have been in "gambling" within the private auctions and getting the winning "sucker" to bid high.)

Instead, in the case of .WEB, due solely to the insistence of the winning bidder, the ICANN "last resort" auction for .WEB produced net proceeds of over $132 million for beneficent purposes in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook, as well as ICANN's mission and status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit public benefit corporation.
UrbanDictionary.com definition of "donut"--'Top Definition'--"An individual who is extremely stupid. Lacks intelligence and common sense."

b.  New gTLD .AFRICA Litigation
Plaintiff DCA (DotConnectAfrica Trust) Survives ICANN's Motion for Summary Judgment--excerpt of Order (embed further below):
"... any claims that do not lie in fraud or willful injury are barred by the Covenant [Not to Sue]. Those that do, are not [barred][p.5] .... The Court cannot therefore, find as a matter of law that ICANN did not defraud DCA by stating on the one hand it would follow its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation in processing DCA's application, while on the other hand giving preference to ZACR's application throughout the process. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons ICANN's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action. The motion is granted as to the remaining causes of action."[p.10] [Dated Aug 9, 2017](emphasis added)
Order on ICANN's Motion for Summary Judgment (pdf)(embed below)

See also Plaintiff DCA's first amended complaint (pdf) for second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action.

c.  Quote of the Week [CCWG-AuctionProceeds] Conflict Of Interest: "This is ICANN, where there is effectively no such thing as conflict of interest so long as you declare."--Evan Leibovitch (emphasis added)

3) Names, Domains & Trademarks
•  Deadwood Trademark Registrations: Trademark Office Wants to Make It Easier to Cancel Registrations | TheIndianaLawyer.com: "Trademark practitioners will tell you the U.S. Trademark Office has a deadwood problem ... the Trademark Office’s register is full of registrations for trademarks no longer in use (or in the case of some, never used) and no longer entitled to registration, often referred to as “deadwood registrations.” Fortunately, the Trademark Office has been listening and is developing strategies to help remove deadwood."

 •  Facebook Moves to Seize Russian Domain Name facebook.ru | TheMoscowTimes.com: Facebook is demanding Russian payment system Zolotaya Korona hand over the domain name facebook.ru which it has held since 2005, Kommersant.ru reported Monday.

•  Criminal Cybersquatting
SecuringIndustry.com: US man arrested for fake clothing smuggling: "... a "sophisticated scheme" to import around 200 shipping containers of fake brand-name apparel from China into the US. Su Ming Ling (50), a former resident of Queens, New York, was arrested in California ... According to legal documents, Ling allegedly used several aliases between May 2013 and January 2017 to register and create numerous internet domain names and email addresses with the intention that they resembled the internet domain names of real US businesses ..."  See also Luxury Brands Just Got One More Reason to Hate the Internet: Spoofing | Adweek.com: "New study reveals it's a bigger problem than many believed."

 •  More Cybersquatting: Gucci, Hermès, Chanel, Givenchy Among Top Brands Being Targeted by Cybersquatters | TheFashionLaw.com.

•   What Is DNS Hijacking? | WIRED.com: "... A hacker who's able to corrupt a DNS lookup anywhere in that chain can send the visitor off in the wrong direction, making the site [website] appear to be offline, or even redirecting users to a website the attacker controls ..."  See also How DNS TXT records can be used against enterprises | searchsecurity.techtarget.com.

 •  Chinese Brand Names, Copycats, and Soundalikes | ChinaLawBlog.com

•  Cybercrime: SEC chief says cyber crime risks are substantial, systemic | Reuters.com

•  GoDaddy Expansion: RBC Capital Markets analyst Mark Mahaney says the management of the world's largest domain name registrar, GoDaddy (NYSE:GDDY), sees the need to penetrate more market to expand past its current 17M customers and 465M small- to mid-sized enterprise clients outside the United States.--SeekingAlpha.com. See also MarketWatch.com Sep 6, 2017: GoDaddy (NYSE:GDDY) shares fall after 2nd share offering in 4 months.

•  .UK domains left at risk of theft in Enom blunder | theregister.co.uk: Registrar eNom finally plugs web address hijacking vulnerability.

•  New gTLD .CPA: Congressmen concerned about misuse of .CPA top-level domain | AccountingToday.com

•  .AU backlash: Unrest at the Australian Domain Administration shows little sign of abating | afr.com: the .AU domain name regulator "faces an intense member backlash to the new vision, style and plans of newish CEO Cameron Boardman ..."

•  Why microsites aren't always ideal for SEO | SearchEngineLand.com: "... reasons you may want to reconsider splitting your website into multiple microsites. Following are some potential SEO issues that can result from implementing microsites ..." See also Google says we don't need no stinking location modifiers... or do we? | SearchEngineLand.com.

4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 

5) Most read posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) this past week on DomainMondo.com: 
1. News Review | New gTLDs Hucksters Lose Again: ICANN Says No $$$
2. 2017 Hurricane Season, Satellite Views, Weather App MyRadar, LIVE Feeds
3. News Review | Report: ICANN's New gTLDs As Global DNS Malware
4. Making Chatbots More Human, New York Startup Init.ai (video)
5. Visualizing the Massive $15.7 Trillion Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-02-05

US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee Demand Answers From ICANN CEO

UPDATE March 3, 2016: US Senators Cruz, Lankford, Lee's New Letter to ICANN Chairman re: China

 UPDATE: February 23, 2016: The office of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R) Texas, has issued the following press release (emphasis added): Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas:

"Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate
CHEHADE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ALL ICANN DECISIONS THAT COULD IMPACT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT

"February 23, 2016 | WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued the following statement today regarding a letter that Cruz, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) received from Fadi Chehade, CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on Friday. Chehade’s letter [see below] was in reply to one that Cruz, Lankford, and Lee sent [see further below] on February 4 raising serious concerns and requesting information regarding Mr. Chehade’s involvement with the World Internet Conference, which is organized by the Chinese government, a regime notorious for its censorship of the Internet and criminalization of online speech.

“Either the World Internet Conference and the People’s Republic of China have misreported the events that took place during their own conference or Fadi Chehade isn’t being completely honest with the United States Senate,” said Sen. Cruz. “While Chehade continues to state that his first meeting won’t take place until later this year, the Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People’s Republic of China, reported on December 17, 2015 that, ‘The advisory committee held its first meeting on the sidelines of the second World Internet Conference in Wuzhen of east China's Zhejiang Province. Jack Ma, founder of China’s Internet giant Alibaba, and Fadi Chehade, president and CEO of ICANN, act as co-chairman of the advisory committee.’ It should also be noted that Chehade has admitted that he has entered into an arrangement while still serving as the CEO of ICANN and performing under a contract with the United States government, through which his future travel costs to the Chinese government’s state-sponsored World Internet Conference will be compensated. Travel compensation from the Chinese government can be a form of personal conflict of interest, which could impair Chehade’s ability to act impartially and in the best interest of the government when performing under the contract. As such, Chehade should recuse himself from all ICANN decisions that could impact the Chinese government, which include all negotiations and discussions pertaining to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition.” "
[--end of update--]

 UPDATE (Feb 19, 2016): By letter (pdf)--embedded below--dated February 19, 2016, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehade has replied to the letter sent by US Senators Cruz, Lankford & Lee (see further below). Interestingly, the letter sidesteps and does not answer some of the direct questions posed by the US Senators:


--end of update--

US Senator Ted Cruz (who is also currently running for nomination as the Republican candidate for US President), together with US Senators James Lankford and Michael S. Lee, have written to ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade demanding answers about ICANN's participation in the World Internet Conference (WIC) and Chehade's serving as co-chair of a high-level advisory committee for the WIC. Specifically the Senators request a response from Chehade no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 19, 2016 to the following questions:


 (US Senators Cruz, Lankford, Lee letter embedded below, and available as pdf)


See also on Domain Mondo:



DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-12-22

Caveat ICANN: FIFA Bans Blatter and Platini For Conflict of Interest (video)



FIFA Bans Blatter and Platini From World Soccer -  FIFA President Sepp Blatter and the head of European soccer, Michel Platini, have been banned from world soccer for eight years by a FIFA ethics committee for "Conflict of Interest."  Published on Dec 21, 2015 by WSJ.com.

What would happen at ICANN in a similar situation? The evidence indicates conflicts of interest, or inappropriate conduct with parties having vested interests ("stakeholders"), by ICANN Officers (and staff) are tolerated, ignored, or even encouraged and rewarded! Who's legally responsible? Ultimately the ICANN Board of Directors under California law. Has the ICANN Board of Directors been held accountable for its failure to have in place or enforce an effective Code of Conduct for all ICANN officers and staff? Of course not! That's the reality of ICANN accountability, now, and probably in the future, despite all the talk of "enhancing ICANN accountability"--see, e.g., on Domain Mondo: this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-10-22

ICANN 54 Public Forum Video, Q&A, ICANN, INTA, IANA, Lobbyists



Q: “We have a question actually, series of questions from John Poole, the editor of domainmondo.com. As disclosed by Professor Milton Mueller in a tweet dated October 14, 2015, when exactly did ICANN join INTA whose membership list is not public? How much has ICANN paid INTA including membership dues? Please identify the ICANN officer who authorized this transaction. and what other lobbying organizations ICANN has joined as a member, the date it joined, the ICANN officer who authorized each identified transaction, and whether and when the ICANN Board of Directors was informed of any of these transactions and the reason none of these memberships have been heretofore disclosed by ICANN. Whether ICANN ever inquired of legal counsel whether such membership in own nonprofits -- excuse me, in such advocacy and lobbying organizations were violative of ICANN's own nonprofit status under California law or the Internal Revenue service Code of the United States of America, whether ICANN has in place an ethics code or conflict of interest policy for the ICANN corporation, its staff and officers which would bar ICANN from expending funds or becoming a member of such an advocacy or lobbying organization, or collaborating with such organizations' members who regularly engage in advocacy concerning issues within ICANN's mission and purpose. And finally explain how ICANN, its staff and officers are now [not] disqualified from participating in any ICANN rights protections review, particularly after ICANN staff “coached” INTA membership how to lobby ICANN in the upcoming rights protection review as revealed in the article cited by Professor Mueller." 

>>Mike Silber [ICANN Board Member]: If I can possibly intervene on that question before we hand over to staff, if they have a more substantive review. I think there were a lot of very dense questions asked over there. And it's incredibly difficult if somebody's expecting an answer to that series of questions, having been read out scrolling up on the screen, to actually answer all of that comprehensively. So can I really suggest that if you want to ask that sort of multi-part question in this sort of forum, you send it through way ahead of time so that staff have an opportunity to prepare the detailed responses? Because I don't think it's capable of being answered on the cuff. And then when we say we'll get back to you, then people get upset with us. So really, help us to help you in the form that questions are asked. If you want a general answer, I think we can ask staff to address that question, but if you want those detailed responses to each and every sub item of the question, let's make take that part of it offline.

[DomainMondo.com Editor’s Note: Question was submitted via email, October 21, 2015 (US time), approximately 12 hours before the Public Forum commenced.]

[in the Chat window at this point: - (10/22/2015 08:25) John Berryhill [Attorney for Domain Name Registrants in many UDRPs]: shorter - "why did icann join an org that lobbies icann?"]

>>Erika Mann {ICANN Board Member Chairing this part of the Forum]: Fadi --
>>Fadi Chehade: shall I answer this in arabic?
>>Erika Mann: Yes, we had an exchange on the Board, so please give the answer.

>>Fadi Chehade: So I think following my colleague's good comment, we promise to take the transcript of this question and to get back to the -- ask the person who laid it out with an answer. but at least the high-level -- if I could just give a high-level view of this, we have joined INTA as a nonprofit organization status which costs us 600 U.S. dollars per year. It gives ICANN employees that are interested in utilizing professional educational programs the ability to access the many, many INTA publications and resources, and to also receive significant discounts when attending INTA meetings. So we do have staff members and Board Members who have individually and on behalf of ICANN attended and participated in open conferences of INTA for many years. This is way before, you know, I started. So this has been an established activity. INTA meetings and conferences frankly offer us something specific called continued -- continuing legal education which is required, and ICANN has over 20 attorneys across our staff who, by requirements of the bar, need to continue their education. and so they use this very small fee to basically access a vast amount of courses. It saves us, all of us, a lot of money for them to get this access. Now, I just want to be clear that ICANN has not taken any position on any INTA policies, has not. And we have not attempted to influence or develop INTA policy positions. Now, as an INTA member we are entitled to one vote out of something like 1,000 at meetings of the association. but ICANN -- [bell ] but ICANN has not exercised that right ever. So just to be clear on it. however, the questions were numerous. we will take them and address them fully to the person who sent the question. thank you.

>>Erika Mann: thank you.

[Later in the Public Forum meeting]

>>Brad White: a question from Kieren McCarthy directed to Fadi Chehade. At the last public forum at Buenos AiresIasked if ICANN would provide details for the lobbyists in washington, dc and how much they paid them. fadi said he would provide those in an email. unfortunatelyIhave not received an email. I have since done some research. i can provide records about public law. the amount it spent on lobbying in its tax forms. According to those records ICANN has hired three main lobbyists, including one staffer, and spent $576,000 in 2014. However, it is also the case that ICANN has hired a significant number of other lobbyists over the IANA transition and has used a loophole in congressional rules to not publicly disclose them. most significantly ICANN has hired at the cost of millions of dollars Stephen Hadley and former secretary of state madeleine Albright, ICANN hires further three lobbyists including three former senior commerce staff. while ICANN ensure that is the community does all of its work on the IANA transition in public and with full transparency and considering that ICANN has specifically raised concerns about the money being spent on legal advice for the accountability working group, will ICANN commit to being similarly transparent about the people it hires to carry out its work and the amount of money it spends on their services? as a specific suggestion, ICANN could live up to its stated goals of transparency by introducing a budget line item simply called "lobbying" and introduce the real amount it spends on outside lobbying companies. Will ICANN staff commit to this same level of openness that it demands of its community? 
[applause ] [timer sounds ] 
>>Fadi Chehade: Kieren, I had asked you to send me a letter asking me for what you want and you never did. So I ask you again, in front of the whole community, to please write down exactly what you're looking for, if this is what you just asked, great. If you want to publish an article with the question, do. Send me the question, and we'll answer you. It’s that simple. But we did not get a formal request from you. We told you at the time everything we do is on the web site. It is on the web site. That’s how you found your numbers. That’s how you gave the facts you just did. So we are transparent. So please, if you have specific requests, send them in writing.

In the Chat Window:
Kieren McCarthy: The only thing Chehade said was: "We'll send the answer by email and help him find the links."
….
Kieren McCarthy: Follow up question send in: A quick follow up on Fadi Chehade's response to my question.Mr Chehade said that he had asked me to send an email asking for details and that ICANN had not received one, so no information on the money spent on lobbyists has been sent. Unfortunately that is simply not true. If you look at the transcript of the forum, the sole response was: "We'll send the answer by email and help him find the links."So two questions: 1. Does ICANN believe it is only obliged to provide information over how it spends its money in response to community demands ? 2. Will ICANN commit to the same level of openness that it demands of its community by introducing a budget line called "Lobbying" and introduce the real amount it spends on outside lobbying companies? Thank you.

>>REMOTE INTERVENTION: FIRST QUESTION IS FROM KIEREN McCARTHY. A QUICK FOLLOW UP ON FADI CHEHADE'S RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION. MR. CHEHADE SAID HE HAD ASKED ME TO SEND AN EMAIL ASKING FOR DETAILS AND ICANN HAD NOT SEEN ONE SO NO INFORMATION ON INFORMATION TO SPENT. THAT'S NOT TRUE T. SOLE RESPONSE WAS WE'LL SEND THE ANSWER MY EMAIL AND HELP MINIMUM FIND THE LINKS. SO TWO QUESTIONS, ONE, DOES ICANN BELIEVE IT IS ONLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION OVER HOW IT SPENDS ITS MONEY IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEMANDS. TWO, WILL ICANN COMMIT TO THE SAME LEVEL OF OPENNESS THAT IT DEMANDS OF ITS COMMUNITY BY INTRODUCING A BUDGETS LINE ITEM CALLED LOBBYING AND INTRODUCE THE REAL AMOUNT IT SPENDS ON OUTSIDE LOBBYING COMPANIES?

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: OKAY, FADI, CAN YOU RESPOND ONCE AGAIN?

>>FADI CHEHADE: SURE. MR. McCARTHY, LET ME SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AGAIN, WE HAVE PUBLISHED THE LINKS AND A TWEET AS WE SAID. IF YOU HAD MORE QUESTIONS, YOU SHOULD SEND THEM. YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, YOU SHOULD KNOW, WAS NOT ACCURATE. IT INCLUDED MANY MANGLED FACTS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU LISTED COMPANIES LIKE RGM, THE COMPANY OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE AS A LOBBYIST. THEY'RE NOT LOBBYISTS. YOU'RE MIXING THINGS. SO THAT'S WHY I SAID SEND US A VERY CLEAR LETTER, EXACTLY WHAT IS IT YOU NEED, AND WE'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER YOU CLEARLY.

AND IN TERMS OF DETAILS, JUST FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, OUR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BY LAW NEED TO BE DISCLOSED. WE DISCLOSE THEM. THEY'RE ON OUR WEB SITE. COULD YOU SHOW THE LINK, PLEASE? IF YOU GO TO OUR WEB SITE, YOU SO PICK UP STRAIGHT FROM OUR 990 FORM EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE SPENT LAST YEAR ON LOBBYING. THIS YEAR, WE'RE ON TRACK TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT, CLOSE TO $700 THOUSAND. AND BY NEXT YEAR, MY GUESS AFTER THE TRANSITION IS THAT THESE COST WILLS PROBABLY BE HALVED. SO THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS OUT THERE.

NOW, YOU HAD MIXED OTHER FIRMS WE USE, CONSULTANTS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND THOSE COSTS ARE PART OF THE TRANSITION. SO IF YOU GO TO THE SECOND LINK, PLEASE SAVE YAY, YOU WILL SEE ALSO THAT WE PUBLIC ALL OF OUR COSTS ON THE TRANSITION. IT'S ON OUR WEB SITE. I KNOW YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO FIND THEM. PLEASE GO LOOK AT THEM. AND IF WE NEED TO PROVIDE MORE DATA, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO. SO PLEASE, IF THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. BUT LOBBYING IS LOBBYING. IT'S DEFINED AS WORKING WITH PEOPLE THAT HELP US WITH GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. AND THAT LOBBYING IS DISCLOSED FULLY CLEARLY. OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE ALSO DISCLOSED AS PART OF OUR PROJECTS, AND IF WE CAN BE FURTHER CLEAR TO YOU, DON'T HESITATE TO LET ME KNOW.

[TIMER SOUNDS ]

See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN Lobbying, Conflicts, Ethics, Transparency, Accountability, Disclosure 23 Oct 2015


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-10-21

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.




DISCLAIMER

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

2015-06-06

Internet Governance, ICANN, IANA Transition, Congress .SUCKS (video)



Domain Mondo reviewer: If you can tune out everything that comes out of the mouths of Nevett, Thrush, and Hedlund--none of whom are credible, in my opinion--and focus on Mueller's and Miller's comments, this may be a video worth watching if you follow Internet governance issues. Congrats to Professor Mueller on his upcoming move to Georgia Tech (which he announces on the video). Note the following--
  • New York Times (2012): "Eyebrows were raised last year when Peter Dengate Thrush, former chairman of ICANN and a fan of the domain name expansion [new gTLDs] joined a company that invests in domain names."
  • Peter Dengate Thrush - ICANNWiki: "Mr. Dengate Thrush left ICANN [as Chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors] in June, 2011, about a month later it was announced that he was joining Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd. as its Executive Chairman. Top Level Domain Holdings Limited is the parent company of Minds + Machines. The move was greeted by ... allegations of misconduct, given the move from approving new gTLDs to effectively selling them... his detractors claim that he compromised ICANN's integrity via a conflict of interest." (emphasis added)
  • "We think of the new TLDs almost like vanity license plates."-- Jon Nevett, Donuts co-founder and executive vice president of corporate affairs.
Thrush and Nevett--what a pair! Throw in ICANN apologist Jamie Hedlund, and you've got a real threesome there.  Couldn't the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus get a higher quality panel?
Internet Governance, ICANN and Congress.Sucks: Where is Control of the Internet Going? Presented by the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, Washington D.C., on June 5, 2015. Internet Governance, ICANN, and Congress, the IANA stewardship transition and dot SUCKS and other new gTLDs--the panel below discussed the latest developments in the international drama that is Internet governance--the U.S. government’s decision (NTIA) to transition its historic stewardship role to the global multistakeholder community, which involves control of key Internet functions performed by ICANN, the enhancing ICANN accountability process now underway, attempts by international organizations such as the U.N. to exert greater control over Internet decisions in fora like WSIS+10, and numerous ICANN controversies such as the .SUCKS domain names controversy.

Panel of Speakers:
  • Jamie Hedlund, Vice President, Strategic Programs, Global Domain Division, ICANN (Bio)
  • Michelle Sara King, President & CEO, King Consults (Bio)
  • Cheryl Miller, Director, International Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Verizon
  • Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies (Bio)
  • Jon Nevett, Co-Founder & EVP, Donuts Inc. (Bio)
  • Peter Dengate Thrush, former Chairman of the Board of Directors, ICANN (Bio)
  • Sally Shipman Wentworth, Vice President of Global Policy Development, Internet Society (Bio) moderator

NetCaucus | Internet Education Foundation


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-03-18

Blast from the Past: ICANN, New gTLD Domain Names, Conflicts of Interest (video)

Kinderis Says New Web Domain Names Create Opportunities - but for whom?

Published on January 11, 2012: (Bloomberg) -- "Adrian Kinderis, a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) advisory council [ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)] and CEO of ARI Registry Services, talks about domain names. ICANN, manager of the Web's address system under a U.S. Commerce Department contract, will start accepting applications for new top-level domains today [January 11, 2012]. The Marina del Rey, California-based group may approve hundreds of new Web address extensions to the right of the "dot," including company and brand names, cities and almost any word in any language. Kinderis speaks from New York with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television's "First Up." (Source: Bloomberg, emphasis added)

No obvious conflict of interest at play here, right? Good Ol' ICANN--LOL!

Of course, at this same time (early 2012), the US Department of Commerce was threatening to pull the IANA contract away from ICANN due to its poor conflicts of interest policy:

Ethics Fight Over Domain Names Intensifies - New York Times March 18, 2012: "The Commerce Department ...warned the organization [ICANN] that it needed to tighten its rules against conflicts of interest or risk losing a central role.... ICANN has come under heightened scrutiny because of an initiative to increase vastly the number and variety of available Internet addresses. Under the plan, which ICANN is putting into effect, hundreds of new “top-level domains” — the letters like “com” that follow the “dot” in addresses — are set to be created. Some business groups say the expansion of domains will cause a rise in trademark violations and cybersquatting, while some governments object to ICANN’s move to create address suffixes like .xxx, for pornography. But the initiative has been cheered by companies that register and maintain Internet addresses. A number of current and former members of the ICANN board have close ties to such registrars or to concerns involved in other areas that stand to benefit from the expansion.“ICANN must place commercial and financial interests in their appropriate context,” said Mr. [Rod] Beckstrom [former ICANN Chairman]... “How can it do this if all top leadership is from the very domain-name industry it is supposed to coordinate independently? “A more subtle but related risk is the tangle of conflicting agendas within the board... the United States government is also dissatisfied with ICANN. The Commerce Department said it had canceled a request for proposals to run the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority because none of the bids met its requirements: “the need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.” Eyebrows were raised last year when Peter Dengate Thrush, former chairman of ICANN and a fan of the domain name expansion, joined a company that invests in domain names." (emphasis added)

And now, 3 years later, what have ICANN's new gTLDs given us (besides a lot of money in ICANN's pocket)?

Cyber-squatting disputes up 300% amid web address explosion - Telegraph: "There has been a 313 percent increase in the number of disputes over the new generation of web addresses [new gTLD domain names] in the last eight months"

 This internet address costs $2,500 annually—and it sucks - Quartz  "At the heart of the controversy is what .sucks is for. Critics see it as a “predatory shakedown scheme,” in the memorable words of one American politician."

ICANN must have no shame.

keywords: ICANN, new gTLDs, GNSO, domain names, conflict of interest, public interest, exploit, increased costs, fraud,

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

2015-01-01

New gTLDs, ICANN Boondoggle, MIT Technology Review

Now that we know ICANN knowingly compromised Internet stability and security just to make money off its new gTLDs--time for a look to the recent past and some of the warnings ICANN had before it made the worst decision in its 16+ year history--

ICANN's Boondoggle | MIT Technology Review: (August 21, 2012) "... It’s [new gTLDs expansion] happening because the body in charge of these things—the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN—thought it would be fun and profitable. That may sound flip, but it’s the simplest explanation for the coming chaos... ICANN is itself a monopoly... There is no general shortage of Web addresses. If there were, we might have seen businesses flocking to other new domains ICANN has already introduced over the past decade [.INFO, .BIZ, .MOBI, etc.]. ICANN says it’s opening up these domains to promote competition and choice in the domain-name industry. But confusion and profiteering are the more likely results... there’s a lot of money to be made now, starting with the fees that marketers, lawyers, and consultants familiar with the domain-name business have already begun to extract from big brands... Through all this, ICANN could also cash in... $357 million in application fees that the Los Angeles–based organization has already collected... What amazing new benefits will all this spending bring to consumers? None whatsoever, at least in the eyes of venture investor Esther Dyson, who served as chair of ICANN from its inception in 1998 until 2000. Dyson once supported the idea of allowing companies to create arbitrary top-level domains, but she says she came to believe that the change would be unnecessary and confusing for the public. “I don’t think it’s illegal, but it’s wasteful,” she says. “One version of the future is: a lot of people spend a lot of money marketing [new gTLD domain names], and a lot of new consultancies are created, and a lot of lawyers are very busy protecting and enforcing property rights, and there is no net benefit to anybody.”... Who gave ICANN the power to make this mess? The U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the ultimate keeper of the root zone file... Thus was born a financial conflict of interest that continues to this day: ICANN subsists on the very industry it purports to govern. Dyson says she “lost any faith, over time,” in ICANN’s ability to regulate the domain-name business..." (emphasis added, read more here)

Welcome to ICANN's Depraved.New.World --



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

2014-10-02

Why ICANN's New gTLD Domains Are A #FAIL, Reason #1

There are 2 main reasons why most of ICANN's new gTLDs (generic top-level domains) are a #FAIL and the first reason goes to the core threshold question that ICANN, its Board of Directors, and all stakeholder groups, should always ask, but particularly whenever proposing, considering or implementing a change, or an expanded or new program:

THE QUESTION: Does this increase or decrease costs for domain name registrants?

The answer will invariably always guide one to the right decision. If the answer is that the proposal increases costs, then that should usually end the discussion and any further consideration. Unfortunately, ICANN (and I use the term "ICANN" here in the collective sense of its Board of Directors, Officers, staff, and stakeholders) either failed to ask THE QUESTION or failed to give proper weight to the answer. There is no question that the new gTLDs increase costs for domain name registrants--the registration and renewal fees for new gTLD domain names are higher* on average (sometimes much higher), businesses and trademark holders are bearing increased costs in defensive registrations, trademark enforcement, and related costs, and none of these increased costs are outweighed by any benefits that new gTLDs bring to the marketplace. That is why University of Pennsylvania Wharton School marketing professor Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative, said:
"I really can’t see a legitimate upside where new benefits [of the new gTLDS] outweigh costs, and everyone I mention this to feels the same way. People just shake their heads. It’s all about the money. They [ICANN] are creating these extensions because they can." (source: Knowledge@Wharton).
It is also the reason that the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said: "The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion [of new gTLD domains]."

If one looks behind the veil at ICANN, it is easy to understand why ICANN failed to either ask the threshold question, or heed its answer: greed and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of ICANN (Board of Directors, Officers, staff, "high stakes" stakeholders with vested interests)--see this and this and this and this and this. And of course, let's not forget that no one within ICANN, particularly within the Board of Directors or influential key stakeholder groups, represents the interests of domain name registrants--there is no "domain name registrants' interest group" within ICANN--for a very good reason: ICANN has been "largely captured by the domain name industry" (registry operators and registrars and their service providers), and they view domain name registrants as captive consumers to be exploited for financial gain. To grant domain name registrants equal power to the domain name industry, or "oversight authority" to governments (which traditionally guard the "public interest" and prevent exploitation of consumers), would be a threat to the domain name industry's power within ICANN. Remember it was the U.S. Department of Commerce, not ICANN, that insisted on limiting what Verisign could charge for .COM registration and renewal fees through November, 2018, in the last contract (2012). And that is why ICANN today is adamant that neither governments nor domain name registrants have equal footing nor oversight of ICANN's operations which could threaten the power of their favored stakeholders--registries and registrars and their service providers. After all, it's the high-stakes vested interest stakeholders--the registries and registrars--which ICANN officers refer to as their "customers."

*Note: No one at ICANN ever polled the global internet community or domain name registrants, at the time new gTLDs were under consideration, with the question: "Do you want the costs of domain name registration and renewal fees to double, triple, or even be unlimited/unregulated, and other costs to increase dramatically, in return for increasing the number of gTLDs from 22 to more than 1300?"

Tomorrow: Reason #2 new gTLD domains are a #FAIL--the market can be cruel, sometimes very cruel--some high-stakes players are about to find out just how cruel the market can really be.

See also: ICANN, New gTLD Domain Names, Universal Acceptance Another #FAIL





Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2014-05-26

ICANN, Kurt Pritz, Conflict of Interest, new gTLD domain names program




15 November 2012

To the ICANN Community,

Regretfully, I have accepted the resignation of Kurt Pritz, who has served most recently as ICANN’s Chief Strategy Officer.

Kurt has submitted his resignation because of a recently identified conflict of interest, which he immediately communicated to ICANN. After analyzing this conflict of interest, we decided that a change in Kurt’s role within ICANN would be appropriate. Kurt decided to resign his position and role as an officer of ICANN, to best serve the interests of the organization. Kurt will be engaged as a subject matter expert where needed, but will have no access to new gTLD applicant information nor will he play a role in the new gTLD program.

I have already put in place a plan for the reassignment of all of Kurt’s management responsibilities.

I would like to thank Kurt for his many years of service and commitment to ICANN and our community.

Respectfully,
Fadi

And who is Kurt Pritz?

Former ICANN Executive Kurt Pritz Joins Domain Name Association as Executive Director: "Former ICANN executive Kurt Pritz has assumed the role of interim Executive Director for the Domain Name Association, a newly formed non-profit business association that represents the interests of the domain name industry. Kurt will be working with and representing DNA during the ICANN-48 meetings in Buenos Aires. He played a key role in the growth of ICANN and is best known as the architect of ICANN's new gTLD program...."

This guy was the architect of ICANN's new gTLD domain names program! The same program ICANN adopted over the vociferous objections of governments, business groups, trademark holders, and the public interest. The same unwanted and unneeded expansion of generic top-level domains that are now polluting the domain name ecosystem that ICANN was supposed to protect and be a steward of, and are causing all of kinds of headaches, expansion of staff, multiplicity, duplicity, and explosion of expenses at ICANN. One big mess always leads to others. Some call this the Law of Bad Ideas.

What exactly was the conflict of interest that caused ICANN's Chief Strategy Officer Kurt Pritz to have to resign? And why did ICANN compensate a former officer AFTER his conflict of interest was known to some insiders (and apparently was incompatible to his duties and obligations to ICANN) at apparently an even higher rate than he was making as a full-time Chief Strategy Officer of ICANN? ICANN sure knows how to "take care" of insiders -- particularly those who resign after admitting to having a "conflict of interest" apparently incompatible with their positions and duties. But I guess this is what happens when an organization like ICANN has no members, no transparency, no accountability, and a Board of Directors with their own conflicts of interest!

No one is talking -- not even bloggers who claim to cover the domain name industry:
Pritz’s conflict of interest was with ARI | DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion: "I’ve decided not to report the full details, other than to say the conflict relates to ARI Registry Services, a major provider of back-end registry services for new gTLD applicants."

 Domain Name Association: "...Kurt Pritz has assumed the role as interim Executive Director for the newly created organization... "Kurt Pritz is the right man for the job of making the Domain Name Industry’s first-ever trade association a must-join organization," said Adrian Kinderis, chair of the interim board and CEO of ARI Registry Services. "He has been a long time industry participant through his senior position at ICANN ..." 

ICANN needs to "come clean" and answer the questions raised in this post which have also been raised by others -- THIS is what transparency and accountability to a global multistakeholder community is all about. And if ICANN is not up to the task (which appears to be the case), ICANN needs to get out of the way, and go away! And take your stinking new gTLDs program with you!




Labels: , , , , , ,

2014-05-09

IANA transition, Google Responds to ICANN Draft Proposal

Kudos to Google and its Policy Manager, Sarah Falvey, for Google's thoughtful contribution to ICANN's Draft Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions - definitely a "must read" for anyone interested in this ongoing historical process which will affect the IANA functions in the future--including technical administration of the internet, its security, and stability. You can read Google's full statement here (pdf), excerpts follow below.

"....Given the importance of the task, it is critical the following principles are upheld:
● The transition must support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
● The transition must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS;
● The transition must meet the expectations of affected parties; and,
● The transition must maintain the openness of the Internet."

".... It is clear that the sunsetting of the U.S. Government’s stewardship role creates two distinct challenges for the community: first, we need to determine a process for the stewardship of these technical functions; and second, we we need to ensure overall oversight or accountability for ICANN’s broader policy-making remit to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the broader community..."

"...convene a full debate on the issue of the IANA functions oversight transition. Let us be clear: we are not necessarily saying ICANN should relinquish its role as the IANA functions operator..." [DomainMondo note: but that possibility is definitely now on the table!]

"The draft scoping document enumerates the role of the ICANN Board of Directors...At a minimum, this proposed plan creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not an actual conflict of interest, for the ICANN Board... the Board has a vested interest in ensuring ICANN’s continued relevancy within the Internet governance ecosystem and arguably has an interest in scoping the process to preserve ICANN’s existing role...."

"As noted in the NTIA announcement, determining the parameters of the scope of the IANA transition process is a decision that should be left to the community, and the Board of Directors’ fiduciary duty to ICANN as an institution may cloud its ability to scope the process objectively. Allowing the steering group to perform this task would also free up the Board to work on other pressing matters facing the ICANN community, such as implementation of the ATRT recommendations and broader concerns over organizational accountability and transparency..."





Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Domain Mondo archive