Showing posts with label steward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steward. Show all posts

2016-12-28

ICANN CDAR Internet Root Server System Stability Draft Report Comments

"Having already made the worst mistake in its organizational history in the way it implemented the new gTLDs program, ICANN appears content to continue in its misguided ways until it wrecks the internet and/or domain name system, global public resources over which ICANN is not, and never has been, a good steward."--Comment to ICANN's CDAR study (see below) (links and emphasis added).
The Continuous Data-Driven Analysis of Root (CDAR) Server System Stability Draft Report comment period has been extended to 15 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC.

Comments submitted by the original deadline 22 Dec 2016 23:59 UTC:

*Comment to ICANN from the Editor of Domain Mondo re: Continuous Data-Driven Analysis of Root Server System Stability Draft Report:

"The Draft Report is inadequate and fails to assure the global internet community of the Root Zone security and stability, nor does the report definitively answer the essential questions:
"The study’s primary research question is: Did the delegation of new gTLDs degrade the stability or security of the root DNS system? And based on the analysis carried out for this research question, our second research question is: Can we expect that the delegation of more new gTLDs will degrade the stability or security of the root DNS system in the future?" ("Draft Report" 27 Oct 2016, p.2).
"The ONLY thing the authors of the Draft Report can definitely state is: "We did not find any degradation of the stability or security of the root DNS system in this period that we could attribute to the new gTLDs." (Draft Report, p.2)

"That finding is hardly reassuring given the admission the authors of the Draft Report make on p. 3:
"our conclusion is limited to the results of the analyses that we designed and executed and is confined by the imperfections of the available measurement data."
"In addition, both ICANN and the authors of the Draft Report have been careless and negligent in failing to acknowledge and address the substance of the comments of Daniel Karrenberg Chief Scientist RIPE NCC, (speaking individually, not on behalf of the RIPE NCC)--CDAR Study Cannot Predict Stability of the Root Server System--https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cdar-study-plan-02dec15/msg00001.html dated 26 Jan 2016, which stated in part:
"Our main comment and advice to ICANN is: do not expect the study to predict the absence of instabilities in the DNS root name server system including absence of instabilities that may be wholly or partly caused by root zone expansion. ICANN therefore must make proper contingency plans for the unpredictable cases where root zone expansion causes or contributes to instabilities in the DNS root server system." (emphasis added)
"ICANN has a long history of being foolish, careless, incompetent, and grossly negligent, when it comes to coordination and management of the internet, including root zone, in adding new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs)--see e.g., News Review: ICANN Used 'Junk Science' Firm to Justify New gTLDs.

"Having already made the worst mistake in its organizational history in the way it implemented the new gTLDs program, ICANN appears content to continue in its misguided ways until it wrecks the internet and/or domain name system, global public resources over which ICANN is not, and never has been, a good steward."

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

2016-04-14

Will ICANN File An Interlocutory Appeal in DCA Trust gTLD AFRICA Case?

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

 UPDATE ICANN filed an appeal on May 11, 2016, of the District Court's Order granting DCA Trust a Preliminary Injunction--Notice of Appeal embedded below:

UPDATE May 6, 2016: ICANN has withdrawn its Motion to Dismiss (pdf) "[i]n view of the Court's order on DCA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (which DCA won), and Defendant ZACR has now filed its own Motion to Dismiss (pdf) set for hearing on May 31, 2016, at 9:00 am in Los Angeles U.S. District Court.

UPDATE April 17: see News Review: dotAFRICA, Public Interest, Judge Holds ICANN Accountable.

[original post below]
"... Here, the public has an interest in the fair and transparent application process that grants gTLD rights. ICANN regulates the internet – a global system that dramatically impacts daily life in today’s society. The IRP Declaration recognizes that ICANN’s function is “special, unique, and publicly important” and ICANN itself “is the steward of a highly valuable and important international resources.” (Bekele Decl.¶ 23.110, Ex. 1, ECF No. 17.) .... the Court finds “serious questions” going toward DCA’s likelihood of success on the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply in DCA’s favor ... Additionally, the Court finds that both the likelihood of irreparable injury and the public interest favors the injunction. As such, the Court GRANTS a preliminary injunction barring ICANN from delegating the rights to .Africa until this case is resolved ..."--Judge Klausner, U.S. District Court, April 12, 2016, DotConnectAfrica Trust vs ICANN & ZA Central Registry, infra, embedded below (emphasis added).
In a U.S. District Court ruling that may have far reaching impacts beyond just the Plaintiff's case, new gTLD .AFRICA applicant, DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA Trust), won its motion for preliminary injunction, as indicated above (read the full decision embedded below).

Will ICANN now file an interlocutory appeal from the Court's ruling?

One legal commentator on Standards of Appellate Review (pdf) has written:
"An appellate court reviews a preliminary injunction primarily for “abuse of discretion.” It will (and should) be predisposed to affirm the trial judge; getting a reversal will be difficult. Most trial courts will at least pay lip service to the usual factors for entering a preliminary injunction. This avoids reversal for simple legal error, and showing abuse in the weighing of those factors can be close to impossible.  The problem is more than just a likely loss, however. A hasty decision to take an interlocutory appeal that you then lose can hurt in the ultimate resolution of the merits. The fact that the standard of review is abuse of discretion reflects an appellate judgment that some decisions are best left to the trial court. Still, declaring the law is what appellate courts principally do; so, when they review the “possibility of success” criterion in injunction appeals, they often announce in controlling dicta the rules for later proceedings. See West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc. 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986)." (emphasis added)
In this case, ICANN and its counsel, Jones Day, may very well decide to file an interlocutory appeal. Obviously ICANN needs controlling legal precedent to prevent parties from seeking redress in the Courts after they have knowingly given up their "rights to sue" in new gTLD applications, registry agreements, etc. This case may also have a bearing on ICANN's suitability to serve as steward of the IANA functions and coordinate the global internet DNS, and may even affect the current IANA transition process now underway. In any event, this ruling is not dispositive of all issues in the case--ICANN has a pending motion to dismiss DCA Trust's case (pdf)--stay tuned.

 Complete copy of Court's Ruling* (yellow highlighting added):

 *DCA Trust issued a press release dated April 12, 2016, with link to the document embedded above. As of April 13, 2016, 2:50 pm PDT, ICANN still had not posted the decision on its webpage of all documents filed in this case, nor made any reference to the ruling on the ICANN website.

See also on Domain Mondo: New gTLD AFRICA: DotConnectAfrica Trust vs ICANN, End of the Line?




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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-03-03

One 'Must Read' For Those Attending ICANN55, Marrakech, March 5-10

Are you attending, in person or remotely, ICANN55 in Marrakech, Morocco, March 5-10?

 Are you troubled by ICANN's pivot towards, and 'unrelenting propaganda' about, new generic top-level domain names (“new gTLDs”)?

 Are you tired of ICANN pushing 'garbage extensions' to a user base that 'quietly knows better' ?

 Isn't it time for ALL of the failed leadership at ICANN, including its Board of Directors, to resign?

Below is the Rightside (NASDAQ:NAME) shareholder letter published by the S.E.C. on March 1, 2016. A similar letter could also have been sent to the ICANN Board of Directors for their failed leadership and corruption of ICANN (ref. also Dr. Paul Vixie), in propagating the new gTLDs program. The ICANN Board has failed to act in the global public interest as steward of the global DNS.  Highlighted sections of the letter below are as applicable to ICANN as they may be to Rightside. Like Rightside, ICANN is a U.S.-based corporation, legally controlled by its Board of Directors.  Directors owe fiduciary duties. ICANN stakeholders do not owe fiduciary duties. 

 EX-99 2 Exhibit_99.htm EXHIBIT 99 (source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) (emphasis added)

February 19, 2016

Mr. David E. Panos
Chairman of the Board
Rightside Group, Ltd.
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE
Suite 300
Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr Panos

I am troubled by the pivot toward, and unrelenting propaganda about, new generic top-level domain names (“GTLDs”). Whilst I concede that new GTLDs are one of many opportunities in the emerging market for second generation domain names, Rightside Group, Ltd. (“Rightside”, “NAME”, or our “Company”) is the second-largest domain name registrar, a business that is here and now. I don’t hear Rightside speaking to this strength. Our Company glosses over this critical revenue component and plays up new GTLDs at the expense of the revenue contribution made by the traditional registrar business.

The user interfaces at eNom and Namejet look and feel clumsy and stale. Looking past the main page of NAME’s sites, the logged-in front-end infrastructure is untouched and acts like time capsule to what existed half a decade ago. Most of our growth in names under management is coming from a reseller channel that is out-executing your own in-house registrar eNom.

While I am a believer in new GTLDs, it is going to be many years before their revenue in any way materially approaches the revenue potential of our registrar operations. In my view, NAME’s registrar has become like a crazy aunt kept in the basement, one that you refuse to adequately clothe or feed, but who steadfastly spins straw into gold used to subsidize a stable of largely substandard new GTLDs such as .democrat, .dance, .army, .navy, and .airforce. Most of these new GTLDs are irrelevant and will never be sold in material volumes. NAME is holding back the growth potential of your registrar by pushing garbage extensions to a user base that quietly knows better.

Rightside is a gem in that it has many assets which are unique or difficult to duplicate. Cannell Capital LLC would not have acquired 1,389,953 shares otherwise. We have some good new domain-endings as well, with .news being one example, but this particular domain-ending and a clutch of others like it do not constitute enough of a “front” to gloss over the majority of your extensions which are low in value and should be spun-off. I believe that we should sell or even abandon some of our worst extensions. They should not consume all the resources of our Company at the expense of the assets that are currently profitable.

The current members of the Board of Directors and indeed many of your shareholders don’t seem to recognize this. I do. Today I stand up to be that paladin. To wit, I submit both a plan and a request: (i) Unify all Company products under the eNom.com brand; (ii) Terminate no less than 20% of your weaker staff; (iii) Move the Name.com entity to Seattle under the eNom.com brand and close expensive ancillary offices; (iv) Rebuild and relaunch the front-end infrastructure at eNom.com to bring it to the current standard expected by consumers; (v) Refinance all debt; and (vi) Add two new board members with a suggestion, but not a requirement that two incumbents resign.

I would prefer to avoid waging an expensive proxy battle to elect my own slate of directors. Such a fight would be costly to both myself and our Company. It is my sincere hope that substantive discussions between myself and the current Board of Directors could result in the infusion of fresh blood without such a fight.

Best Regards!

Sincerely,
/s/
J. Carlo Cannell
Cannell Capital LLC

--end of letter--

See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN Damaged a Competitive Domain Name Market With Its New gTLDs

 Editor's note: a copy of this post has been sent to Steve Crocker (Chairman of the iCANN Board of Directors), Larry Strickling (NTIA, US Department of Commerce), and select members of the U.S. Congress. 




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

2016-03-02

Total ICANN Tab for IANA Stewardship Transition? US$31+ Million!

Total ICANN Tab for IANA Stewardship Transition (including CCWG-Accountability) per Board Director Cherine Chalaby (see further below): "US$25 million in FY15 and FY16 and a further potential expenditure of US$6-9 million in FY17."


Better hope ICANN is a better steward of the IANA functions than it is of the fees paid by domain name registrants (generally US$.25 per gTLD domain name per year) which provide most of the funding for ICANN, including ICANN's IANA Stewardship Transition--and there isn't even a Registrants Stakeholder Lobby Group in ICANN! (did someone say taxation without representation?)--

From the CCWG-Accountability public mail list (March 1, 2016, emphasis added):
Dear Colleagues,
Please find below an update from the Board Finance Committee on a proposed way forward regarding the management of the [IANA] Transition Project costs. This is a particularly timely contribution to our F2F meeting [Friday, March 4th] in Marrakech. We have specifically invited the Finance Committee members to attend the part of our meeting where we plan to discuss this topic.
Best and safe travels to all,
Mathieu Weill (CCWG Co-Chair)

From Cherine Chalaby [ICANN Board Member] Transition and Accountability Cost Next Step:

Dear CCWG and CWG co-chairs,
Further to our call on 9 February 2016 to discuss the cost of the Transition and Accountability work, I have had follow-up calls with the leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations, and I am pleased to report to you that we have reached an agreement on a way forward.

Historical Perspective
Historically, it has not been not part of the multi-stakeholder model to have any one person or even a small group given the authority to make decisions, including on costs. Furthermore, the SOs/ACs have not been able to obtain information about detailed costs for their work, meetings, staff time, etc. Nevertheless, given the large sums of money involved:

USD 25 millions in FY15 and FY16 and a further potential expenditure of USD 6-9 million in FY17, it would be good practice to produce reliable estimates and to manage costs going forward. This would represent a change of culture for the ICANN community. Therefore, it would be best to adopt a two-step approach in order to get the gradual buy-in of the community. Step 1 entails developing reliable estimates, and Step 2 entails deciding how best to manage cost.

Agreement on Step1 - Developing Reliable Estimates (4-6 weeks)
The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations agreed that it is imperative to get a good handle and clarity on past and future expenditures. First we must undertake an in-depth analysis of past expenditures in FY15 and FY16 (up to Marrakech) and understand where and how money was spent. From what we will learn, we should be in a position to estimate future expenditures for the remainder of FY16 (from Marrakech to end of Financial Year in June), and for all of FY17. We must also identify potential problem areas and develop ways to address them, one-by-one. With such plans, we can then present to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs what is likely possible and what is likely to be problematic in terms of cost control mechanisms.

We agreed that Step1 should be undertaken, on a pilot basis, by a small dedicated Project Cost Support Team (PCST) and should not last more than 4-6 weeks. The PCST will consist of four members: a project manager, a legal manager, a financial planner and a project administrator. The ICANN CEO will be responsible for selecting these individuals. The desired selection criteria are: competent, respected and trusted by the community, familiarity with ICANN transition and Accountability work and available on a full-time basis for 4-6 weeks. ICANN will pay for the PCST. The leaders of the SO/AC Chartering Organisations as well as the CCWG and CWG co-chairs will be informed of the cost of the PCST.

The PCST is neither a decision making nor a management team. The PCST is a support function to the CCWG and CWG co-chairs. It must therefore coordinate closely with the co-chairs while undertaking Step1.

Given that the Draft FY17 Budget will be posted on 5 March 2016, a placeholder of USD 6-9 millions has been included in the draft budget for Transition and Accountability work in FY17. This figure will be adjusted once the PCST completes Step 1. It is therefore desirable to start Step1 as soon as possible.

Next Call
It was agreed that we should set up a call once Step1 is completed (around mid to end April) to review the findings of the PCST and to agree collectively on how best to manage cost going forward (Step 2).

I sincerely hope that you are supportive of the pilot work we agreed to undertake. Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions.
Best regards,
Cherine

More information (source: ICANN): IANA Stewardship Transition Project Costs




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

2015-06-04

ICANN Strategic Plan 2016-2020, Video with captions

ICANN Strategic Plan 2016-2020 (with captions) -

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

ICANN's Strategic Objectives:
1. Evolve and further globalize ICANN....
2. Support a healthy, stable, and resilient unique identifier ecosystem....
2.3 Support the evolution of domain name marketplace to be robust, stable and trusted.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS (OUTCOMES)
- Credible and respected industry that is compliant with its responsibilities as demonstrated by open, transparent, and accountable systems, policies, and procedures implemented usingbest practices.
- High confidence in ICANN’s coordination of the domain name system.
STRATEGIC RISKS
- Conflicting agendas of key players thwart cooperation and evolution of marketplace to serve the public interest.
- Loss of confidence in ICANN’s coordination of the domain name marketplace.
3. Advance organizational, technological and operational excellence....
4. Promote ICANN’s role and multistakeholder approach....
4.2 Clarify the role of governments in ICANN and work with them to strengthen their commitment to supporting the global Internet ecosystem....
5. Develop and implement a global public interest framework bounded by ICANN’s mission.
5.1 Act as a steward of the public interest
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS (OUTCOMES)
- The ICANN community’s decision and policy-making structures and processes are driven by a clear understanding of the public interest, including a healthy unique identifier system and marketplace.
- The ‘L’ root server and related infrastructure is enhanced to continually improve the services provided for the public interest.
- Common use across the ICANN community of best practices that demonstrate commitment to the public interest.
- Streamlined reviews that demonstrate the effectiveness of best practices in support of the public interest.
STRATEGIC RISKS
- Inability to reach consensus on what constitutes “public interest”.
- Privacy concerns impact the ability to improve root services.
- ICANN community does not reach consensus on best practices related to the public interest.
- Perception that ICANN is driven by selected interests rather than the public interest.
- ICANN’s structures evolve in a manner that results in capture or perception of capture by groups of stakeholders.... (emphasis added)

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

Domain Mondo archive