Showing posts with label officers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label officers. Show all posts

2016-03-21

New gTLD AFRICA: DotConnectAfrica Trust vs ICANN, End of the Line?

UPDATE June 16, 2016: New gTLD AFRICA Litigation: Defendant ZACR Dismissed as a Party.

 UPDATE April 13, 2016: The U.S. District Court grants DotConnectAfrica Trust's Motion for Preliminary Injunction--see Will ICANN File An Interlocutory Appeal in DCA Trust gTLD AFRICA Case?.

 UPDATE April 4, 2016: "The Court issued the following docket text entry: "SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff DotConnectAfrica Trust's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, calendared for hearing on April 4, 2016, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED"[March 29, 2016]. Note also that ICANN has moved to dismiss Plaintiff DotConnectAFRICA Trust's case, which motion is noticed for April 25, 2016. Update(s) will be posted here once the Court rulings are published.--end of April 4, 2016 update--

 "Whereas, on 17 February 2016, an Extended Evaluation report was posted and indicated that the resumed evaluation of DCA's application for .AFRICA had concluded, and that DCA had failed to submit information and documentation sufficient to meet the criteria described in AGB [Applicant Guide Book] Section 2.2.1.4.3, rendering it ineligible for further review or evaluation. Resolved (2016.03.03.01), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to proceed with the delegation of .AFRICA to be operated by ZACR pursuant to the Registry Agreement that ZACR has entered with ICANN. All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2016.03.03.01. Two members of the Board were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried."--Preliminary Report | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 03 Mar 2016 (emphasis added).

The long drawn-out saga of ICANN's new gTLD .AFRICA and applicant DotConnectAfrica Trust (domain name: dotconnectafrica.org), may be (with emphasis on "may") coming to end, at least as far as being able to proceed with delegation of the new gTLD .AFRICA to be operated by ZACR. Two weeks from now, on April 4, 2016, there will be a hearing in Los Angeles Federal Court on DotConnectAfrica's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop ICANN from further proceeding with delegation of the new gTLD .AFRICA. DotConnectAfrica Trust is an unsuccessful applicant for the new gTLD, but successfully challenged ICANN and its process in awarding the new gTLD through a precedent-setting IRP (Independent Review Proceeding)--the IRP documents are available on the ICANN website here: DCA Trust v. ICANN (.AFRICA) [IRP].

Following issuance of the IRP Final Declaration on, July 9, 2015, there were complaints of misconduct about ICANN, its officers, staff, and Board of Directors, and others, including claims that ICANN's redactions from the Final Declaration, were an attempt to cover-up the misconduct -- see: former ICANN staffer Keiren McCarthy's series of articles in The Register: Unredacted: ICANN's hidden role in fierce battle over .Africa rights and Having been slammed and embarrassed, ICANN tells the world: We've done nowt wrong and ICANN further implicated in .Africa controversy.

 See also on DomainMondo.com: ICANN dot AFRICA IRP: WHO Redacted WHAT In the Final Declaration? and DCA Trust IRP Decision: ICANN Failed the Global Internet Community.

You won't find any mention of DCA Trust, DotConnectAfrica, or new gTLD .AFRICA in former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade's recent "Farewell Letter" (pdf), to the ICANN Board, though there should have been since all of the alleged misconduct occurred "on his watch" as ICANN CEO, and there are many lessons to be learned about ICANN's propensity for "insider dealing," favoritism, conflicts of interest, and other conduct unbecoming of ICANN directors, officers, and staff illuminated in the DCA Trust IRP case. As Kieren McCarthy reported last July: "To date, ICANN's board has not made a statement about the appropriateness of its actions or those of its staff. Nor has it suggested an investigation or other review into the activities highlighted in the review panel's final report." This must be why ICANN wasted $106,000 on Fadi Chehade's Tribute party in Marrakech! Whatever happened to ethical leadership?

Nonetheless, 'having won the battle' DCA Trust a/k/a DotConnectAfrica may have 'lost the war' when it failed the subsequent evaluation referred to in the ICANN Board Resolution first above, which ICANN counsel relies upon in opposing Plaintiff DotConnectAfrica's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, set for Hearing April 4, 2016, in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles:
"When Plaintiff’s Application was returned to processing, it was sent back to exactly the same stage (as the IRP Panel had recommended), the Geographic Names Panel review. The Application was not  returned to the “beginning of the process” as Plaintiff alleges (an argument for which Plaintiff provides no evidence). Rather, the Geographic Names Panel reviewed Plaintiff’s previously-provided documentation, gave Plaintiff two chances to supplement its documentation, and ultimately determined that Plaintiff had not provided sufficient documentation of support or non-objection. If an applicant fails to submit sufficient documentation of support or non-objection, even with the chance to supplement its documentation, “the application will be considered incomplete and will be ineligible for further review.” (Guidebook at 174 (§ 2.2.1.4.4).) Accordingly, following the IRP Panel’s Declaration, ICANN’s Board lifted its stay on the delegation of .AFRICA. This was all entirely in accord with the IRP Panel’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s Application be “permit[ted] . . . to proceed through the reminder of the new gTLD application process.” (IRP Panel Declaration at 67-68 (¶ 149).) In sum, ICANN complied in full with the Declaration. There is no basis for declaratory relief because the only “controversy” between Plaintiff and ICANN is based on Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of the IRP Panel’s findings. ICANN fully complied with those findings, ICANN gave Plaintiff an extended opportunity to meet the conditions of the Guidebook, and Plaintiff failed to do so. Even if Plaintiff had not released ICANN of this claim, the claim provides no basis for the Court to issue a preliminary injunction. (ICANN filing embedded below, [Document 35, pp. 23-24 of 25], emphasis added, most citations deleted from quoted text.) (emphasis added)
ICANN’s Opposition to Plaintiff DotConnectAfrica's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (highlighting added) in full:



This post will be updated when the Court has ruled following the hearing on April 4th. The case has also been set for a scheduling conference on June 6, 2016, at 09:00 AM.  All litigation documents filed in this matter are available on the ICANN website. 

See also on Domain Mondo: US Federal Court Enjoins ICANN From Delegating New gTLD dot AFRICA (March 5, 2016).

For more background, see also: DotConnectAfrica - Wikipedia




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

2016-03-08

ICANN a Steward? LOL! This Is How ICANN Wastes Registrants' Money

UPDATE (emphasis added) [CCWG-ACCT] See Photos from Last Night's AFRALO Showcase/Fadi Tribute in #ICANN55:

Dear Eberhard,
Thank you for your question. The Afralo showcase and tribute to Fadi was held on Monday night. The 2 purposes were combined so that they don’t conflict on the schedule and to save logistics and costs. The entire event cost approximately $106,000 to ICANN which was planned for 1200 people. The Afralo showcase (musicians, dancers,…) was paid for by Afralo. In case of interest, ICANN has previously held a community farewell cocktail for exiting CEOs at their last meeting. The cost of this is typically between $50,000 and $60,000. The additional $40,000 we had to pay this time was for the fitted out marquee including AV. This was required on this particular occasion as no other room large enough to accommodate the entire community was available. I hope this is helpful and addresses your question.
Best,
Xavier Calvez
CFO, ICANN

"Thank you very much.
I am shocked at the amount of money ICANN has to waste.
That does put the pressure being applied with regards to funding of WS2
into perspective.
greetings, el"  [Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

[--end of UPDATE--]

From the CCWG-Accountability public email list: [CCWG-ACCT] See Photos from Last Night's AFRALO Showcase/Fadi Tribute in #ICANN55:

"Xavier [Xavier Calvez, ICANN CFO],
I have received the below.
How much did this extravaganza cost ICANN?
greetings, el"
[Dr Eberhard W Lisse - CCWG-Accountability member, representing ccNSO, from the African Region]

"Camels, Drummers And Hundreds of ICANNers: Last Night's AFRALO Showcase And Fadi Tribute Was A Hit!
"Monday's night Tribute to Fadi was a lively affair. Hundreds of ICANN55 participants filled the Orion Tent at the Palmeraie Golf Palace and Resort to enjoy the food, hear traditional Moroccan music and honor Fadi Chehadé's legacy.  Many took to the stage during the evening's festivities including: El Mountassir Billah Azdine, Director General of the National Agency for Regulation of Telecommunications; Xiaodong Lee, CEO & CTO, China Internet Network Information Center; Demi Getschko, Member of the Board, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN Board Member  and Board Chair Steve Crocker. If you didn't get a chance to take your own camel selfie, you can download last night's photos from ICANN's Flickr account here."--source: ICANN55 newsletter (links added)

The "Fadi" referred to is Fadi Chehade, ICANN's outgoing President & CEO, who gave notice last year that he was quitting ICANN with 2 years left on his contract, and after having served only 2 1/2 years (with a salary+benefits package in the range of $1,000,000+ annually).

Domain Mondo is sure that all domain name registrants worldwide (who fund the bulk of ICANN's wasteful spending), and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz et al, will all be interested to see how ICANN is such a "good steward" of money. Wait until ICANN is no longer subject to U.S. government oversight when the IANA stewardship transition is finished!

Here is an ICANN tweet from last night's "Tribute to Fadi"--
Does anyone wonder what would happen if a government official in the U.S. spent taxpayer funds like ICANN officers and directors spend registrants' taxes fees? How about officers and directors of a publicly listed Fortune 500 corporation who engaged in this kind of corporate waste?
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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-07-09

Comments Overwhelmingly Oppose URS for CAT and PRO gTLDs

Comments closed 7 Jul 2015 23:59 UTC on:

  • Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement--all comments are here. 
  • Proposed Renewal of .PRO Unsponsored Registry Agreement--all comments are here.

    • ICANN staff has only one supporter--Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)--the trademark lobbyist (a/k/a stakeholder) organization within ICANN whose President, Trademark Attorney Greg Shatan, filed the lone comment "supporting" ICANN staff's attempt to apply new gTLDs' URS provisions in the renewal of incumbent gTLDs registry agreements. Even the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) filed an "opposition" comment, stating, in part:
    "... our concern is that a unilateral decision by ICANN contractual staff to take the new gTLD registry agreement as the starting point for renewal RAs for legacy gTLDs has the effect of transforming the PDDRP and the URS into de facto Consensus Policies without following the procedures laid out in ICANN’s Bylaws for their creation. The fact that these RPMs are present in all three proposed renewal RAs referenced in this letter reinforces that conclusion..." (emphasis added)
    In Domain Mondo's opinion, the unilateral actions taken by ICANN staff in recent months raise legitimate questions as to whether Intellectual Property stakeholders may be exercising undue influence over ICANN officers and staff--how else to explain: (1) ICANN staff's attempt to bypass policy-making procedures and bylaw requirements (see BC comment above) and apply the URS in three incumbent gTLD RAs--.TRAVEL, .CAT, .PRO--as well as (2) ICANN officers and staff's attempt to throw under the bus dotSUCKS Registry Operator Vox Populi without any finding of breach of the Registry Agreement or other wrongdoing, but just because the IPC sent ICANN one letter? Why didn't ICANN just respond by telling the IPC to file a complaint with the FTC or OCA? If the IPC (or any special interest stakeholder group within ICANN) says "jump," do ICANN officers and staff only ask "how high?" The entire world saw what the US Federal Trade Commission and Canada's OCA thought of the whole ICANN dotSUCKS fiasco.

    To be clear, this has nothing to do with the merits of the various positions taken by the IPC, some of which Domain Mondo happens to agree with, e.g., who is in favor of exorbitant or extortionate domain name registration pricing schemes? Certainly not domain name registrants! No, this is about integrity of process, transparency, accountability.

    Questions:
    1. Is this any way to run a global multi-stakeholder organization that claims it is ready to be "free of US government oversight"?
    2. Doesn't the global multi-stakeholder community deserve better performance from ICANN staff and officers than indicated above?
    The "ICANN Staff Report" is already way "overdue" on .TRAVEL with no explanation on the ICANN website. What are they waiting for? Who are they conferring with? Are ICANN Officers and staff plotting strategy with interested stakeholders? We have no way of knowing. This is ICANN transparency and accountability?

    In most organizations the rot starts at the top. "Accountability," is a word ICANN loves to preach, but rarely practices. And, unfortunately, the ICANN Board of Directors has allowed ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade to laden ICANN with his personal "cronies" in most top positions--a burden for the next ICANN CEO to deal with, along with ICANN's out-of-control spending, including lavish salaries and benefits. The ICANN Board needs to start holding ICANN staff and officers accountable by asking some direct questions of ICANN Global Domains Division President Akram Atallah. If the Board can't get straight answers and reasonable explanations by those in leadership positions, then perhaps the Board needs to start taking action by telling Akram Atallah (or others) to follow, or precede, "his buddy" Fadi Chehade "out the door." That's called real "accountability."

    For additional background, see on Domain Mondo:

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

    Domain Mondo archive