IANA Stewardship Transition, ICANN Accountability, Senate Hearing

Update on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability: US Senate Holds Hearing on Transition and Future of Multistakeholder Model | Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP - JDSupra:

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Meetings Schedule

CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Meetings Jan 13-Feb, 2015:

*The Adobe Connect Room is open to any and all silent observers: icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/

Current UTC Date/Time:

Meeting #6 Tuesday, 13 Jan 2015 06:00 UTC -- Monday Jan 12th at 10pm PST (US)

Proposed agenda for call on Tuesday, 13 January at 06:00 UTC:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI (5') 
2. CWG update and high level principles (15') 
3. WS1/WS2 recap (20') 
4. Definitions / scoping document : PI discussion (20') 
5. Contingencies : finalize list (20') 
6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting (15')
7. AOB (5')
8. Closing remarks (5') 

Face-to-Face Meeting (Frankfurt) on 19-20 January 2015
Meeting #7 Day 1: Monday 19 January 2015
Meeting #8 Day 2: Tuesday 20 January 2015 TBD

Meeting #9 Tuesday, 27 January 2015 19:00 UTC

Meeting #10 Tuesday, 3 February 2015 12:00 UTC

Face-to-Face Meeting (ICANN 52) TBD

CCWG-Accountability Mailing List Archives 

Also note: Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability, co-chairs Thomas Rickert (GNSO), León Sanchez Ambia (ALAC) and Mathieu Weill (ccNSO) announce that the CCWG has prepared a set of high level statements that might be valuable to all groups or individuals working on proposals as part of the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Process. (09 Jan 2015)

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

Comments on ICANN Enhancing Accountability and Governance Process

The Enhancing ICANN Accountability, New Comment Period on Process (see prior post on this) ended on September 27, 2014, and selected excerpts follow:

Comments of the Brazilian Government [editor's note: Brazil was the only government that submitted comments, and they were of the highest quality of all comments submitted although some are substantive in nature]--

Brazil believes the concept of public interest mentioned in the NETmundial Statement should be seen as encompassing the larger interest of the different communities involved in the Internet Governance processes and not be limited to the interests and objectives of private corporations; 

With all due respect to the ongoing efforts carried out in the context of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRTs), Brazil believes self-review and nonbinding reports should not be deemed as real accountability;

ICANN’s staff should not play a major role in the accountability process – limited perhaps to a supporting role - since ICANN would have a clear conflict of interest in that regard. In particular, ICANN´s staff for instance should not be allowed to unilaterally amend registry contracts;

ICANN’s accountability problem is somehow built into its own organizational structure. Unfortunately, the corporation constitutes a form of governance in which there is no clear separation and independence of powers.

Brazil believes it is crucial to make sure the this process is structured in a way that all stakeholders feel fully involved – including governments - in order to ensure that the final outcome of the exercise is also considered legitimate by all participants;

On a more substantive point, Brazil believes there is an urgent need for an overhaul of ICANN´s procedures, rules and decision making processes with a view to a more transparent, clear, effective and predictable policy development. The "rules of the game" should be clearly set forth and should include appropriate community-driven redress, appeal and enforcement mechanisms.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Much of the September 18 response letter [see below*] seemed to focus on the need to develop trust between the ICANN Board and those stakeholders involved in the accountability process. While we are confident the Board will act in the best interests of the global community, the Chamber suggests injecting transparency into the role and responsibility of the Board.

INTA Internet Committee--We believe that there is a need to ensure that the role and voice of the full spectrum of the business sector is heard as it will be integral to obtaining governmental support of any new ICANN framework resulting from the accountability process. In this regard, the staff proposal’s limitation on participation in the Coordination Group to only one representative per GNSO stakeholder group is inadequate and would not even ensure the participation of business interests and/or brand-owners through the Business Constituency or the Intellectual Property Consistency.

Richard Hill--I agree with those who have criticized this process, in particular because it gives full powers to the ICANN Board. Since the issue is how to replace the oversight provided to date by an organization external to ICANN (NTIA), the decision regarding replacing that oversight should not, in my view, be made by ICANN itself. The decision should be made by the global multi-stakeholder community, as called for by NTIA in its announcement regarding the transition of stewardship of the IANA function.

More background info here: Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process - ICANN, including--

• Questions from the leadership of multiple Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies on the process are available here [PDF, 106 KB].
• Stephen Crocker and Fadi Chehadé respond to questions about the Enhancing ICANNAccountability Efforts here [PDF, 501 KB].--Sept 18, 2014 letter*
• All of the comments submitted by the September 27th deadline are here

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

The ICANN Accountability Enhancement Process Mess

draft of ICANN Accountability Enhancement Process

A tale of two processes | IGP Blog: "....For the accountability process, it’s too early to pass judgement, but the signs are not good. In Singapore and London face to face meetings were held to discuss how to advance the situation.  In May, ICANN solicited comments from stakeholders which did not ask any questions related to actual process. Nonetheless, earlier this week [week of August 8], the ICANN staff and CEO Fadi Chehadé met with ICANN’s SO/AC leaders, and proposed an organizational structure [see graphic] for determining ICANN accountability enhancements... Chehadé urged all the SOs and AC chairs to move into alignment and support the proposal. However, several questions were raised and flaws noted by SO/AC leaders on the call and afterward. The registries were immediately accused by Chehadé of creating an environment of “mistrust” for simply expressing their viewpoint...." (read more at link above, emphasis added)

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

US Senators Tell ICANN To Separate IANA, Functionally OR Structurally

Excerpt from Letter to ICANN from Senators Thune and Rubio

Full Letter (pdf)  -- In a letter dated July 31, 2014, to the Chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors, Dr. Stephen Crocker, US Senators John Thune and Marco Rubio, of the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, commented, with specific recommendations, on the the IANA transition and ICANN accountability.

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

ICANN Accountability, Internet Governance Forum USA video

ISOC-DC TV - Live Events | ISOC-DC: July 16, 2014 -- How to Increase the Accountability of ICANN

IGF-2014 UPDATE: INCREASING THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF ICANN PANEL 
Moderator: Steve DelBianco, NetChoice
Panelist from NTIA: Fiona Alexander (invited by Chris Hemmerlein)
Panelist from Business: Becky Burr, Neustar and formerly with NTIA when ICANN was created
Also panelists from Civil Society, ICANN, Academia:

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

ICANN accountability, the public interest, new gTLD domain names

Recently our colleague, John Poole at Domain Mondo, submitted his input to the ICANN enchancing accountability process. In his email, he addressed fundamental issues facing ICANN --

"ICANN asks:

• What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government?
• What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate?
• Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how?
• What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments?
• Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments?
• What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group?

"Where to start? The central issue and problem at ICANN is how the public interest is so disregarded. Time, and time again, we see examples of this. ICANN's multistakeholder model only contributes to this -- see: http://www.domainmondo.com/2014/05/the-real-problem-with-icann.html . What can ICANN begin to do better? Increase representation of 1) domain name registrants and 2) internet users (often referred to as "consumers") within ICANN, and diminish the presence and voices of those with profit-motives at stake in ICANN decisions, workings and outcomes.

"A real living example of how this plays out within ICANN:

"Is It ICANN's Job To Market New gTLD Domain Names? (go to the foregoing link for the full posting, excerpt follows) --

".... I think it is now clear why the public interest was so disregarded in ICANN's new gTLDs program--

“'The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion' of domains" said Jon Leibowitz, former chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission in the New York Times."

""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." University of Pennsylvania Wharton School marketing professor Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative. (source: Knowledge@Wharton, emphasis added)

"Esther Dyson On New Top-Level Domains: “There Are Huge Trademark Issues” | TechCrunch: "... we are not running out of domains. This is a “way for registries and registrars to make money,” says Dyson. She also points out that “there are huge trademark issues. I just think it is offensive... It will create a lot of litigation.”" [see: Esther Dyson Told ICANN new gTLDs were a mistake in 2011 (video)]

"Tim Berners-Lee: "....when a decision is taken about a possible new top-level domain, ICANN's job is to work out, in a transparent and accountable manner, whether it is really in the best interest of the world as a whole, not just of those launching the new domain. It also means that ICANN's use of the funds should be spent in a beneficent way..."...."

What are your thoughts on this? Feel free to leave comments below.

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

IANA transition and ICANN accountability update

While everyone is waiting on ICANN in order to proceed on the two issues of IANA transition and ICANN accountability, there are four noteworthy submittals (either to ICANN or the US Congress) thus far:

1. The Karl Auerbach letter to the US Congress - see: ICANN Accountability, IANA Transition, Karl Auerbach Letter

2. Google's response to ICANN's Draft Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions -- see: Google Says ICANN Board may have IANA Conflict of Interest

3. Comments on the IANA transition and ICANN accountability from the Just Net Coalition (you can view copy here)

4. The Internet Governance Project Roadmap for Globalizing IANA - see: Separating IANA from ICANN, the Internet Governance Project Roadmap for Globalizing IANA

Note: the comment period on the ICANN accountability process has been extended to June 6 --
Enhancing ICANN Accountability - ICANN: "Update: The discussions around enhancing ICANN Accountability are very important. Community feedback has noted the desire for a longer comment period for this proposed process. In response to ensuring the community has sufficient time, while also having the process in parallel to, and informing, the process to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions, there is a one (1) week extension of the comment period to 6 June. Community members are urged to continue identifying members for the Working Group, with those selected by the ICANN London meeting to hold a listening session with the community. The reply period will close on 27 June at 23:59 UTC. Comment Period: 6 May 2014 - 6 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC | Reply Period: 7 Jun 2014 - 27 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC"

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

ICANN Accountability, IANA Transition, Karl Auerbach Letter

By now, most people in the domain name industry are aware of the NTIA announcement and the ongoing process convened by ICANN in regard to IANA functions, as well as ICANN's own process for enhancing its own accountability. The most important document published thus far in regard to either ICANN accountability or IANA transition is a letter written by Karl Auerbach to the US Congress that covers both issues. Karl is a former member of the ICANN Board of Directors, an internet technologist who has written internet standards that have been adopted by the IETF, has been a principal in several internet start-ups, is a recipient of the Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility, and has been named a fellow of law and technology at Cal Tech and Loyola Marymount. He is also a member of the California Bar and its Intellectual Property section.

Those interested in either ICANN or IANA should read his entire letter (it is a "must read") which can be found here.

Excerpts from Karl Auerbach's letter (emphasis added):

"IANA is essentially a clerical job that usually involves no significant amount of discretion. (And in those rare cases where technical discretion is needed the various technical standards organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force – the IETF – provide specific guidance and designate experts to be consulted.) There is no particular reason why ICANN and IANA are bundled into the same organization. IANA could be handled by any competent clerical provider – such as an established accounting firm. Rather than being a parent organization to IANA, ICANN could just as well be a client for IANA services. Because ICANN is essentially a body that regulates economic and business matters – and is thus subject to storms of debate from financially interested groups – it would be better for IANA to be held separate from ICANN and allowed to do its clerical job in peace and avoid being dragged into matters in which it has no interest and no role."

"ICANN does vanishingly little with regard to the technical stability of the internet and, instead, uses its de facto monopoly position to do a land office business selling rights to internet territory. ICANN does not “assure the technical stability of the internet”. Rather, ICANN dispenses commercial rights and privileges. In exchange for its largess ICANN obtains monopoly rents, significantly restricts legitimate and innovative business practices, and imposes expansive trademark protection well beyond what is required by any law of any nation. ICANN is a private regulatory body that promotes its particular view of social engineering, internet business practices, trademark protection, and preservation of incumbent interests."

"NTIA's role in ICANN has largely been to shield ICANN from questions, most particularly questions that would normally arise about a private body that restrains trade and innovation. One must ask whether that behavior constitutes oversight at all. Or has an absence of oversight by NTIA allowed ICANN to become a permissive playground for financially interested entities to promote private agendas?"

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

ICANN fails to follow its own Bylaws and procedures says IRP panel

"Our bylaws are very important to us. They capture our mission of security, stability and accessibility, and compel the organization to be open and transparent." -- from the ICANN website

ICANN may claim its bylaws are important, but apparently ICANN doesn't follow its bylaws. At least that is what an IRP panel ruled yesterday in the DotConnectAfrica (DCA) Trust Case #50117T108313, full decision here (pdf), stating "In the Panel’s unanimous view, it would be unfair and unjust to deny DCA Trust’s request for interim relief when the need for such a relief by DCA Trust arises out of ICANN’s failure to follow its own Bylaws and procedures." (emphasis added)

The details of how ICANN failed to "follow its own Bylaws and procedures" are set out in full in the decision. Suffice to say, this is one more reason for the global multistakeholder community to question ICANN's pretenses of competency and accountability. Excerpt from the decision (pp.7-8) is set out in the graphics below:

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom

ICANN Now Says It Wants to "Enhance ICANN Accountability"

Looks like the US Department of Commerce and ICANN may have put the cart before the horse. Now, almost 2 months after the US Department of Commerce's NTIA made its IANA transition announcement, ICANN yesterday announced its intention to enhance its own accountability by engaging in a process parallel to, but simultaneous with the IANA transition process:

In a blog post yesterday, Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board of Directors, wrote: "Ever since the NTIA announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions, the ICANN Community, our Board, and ICANN’s leadership all have been in agreement that a process on ICANN’s overall accountability is needed. This process should look at from an organizational perspective, whether and how ICANN’s broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government....I can say that the framing of this process and how it relates to the other, recently- launched process on the transition of IANA stewardship itself, are top priorities for the Board and me. As Fadi noted in Sao Paulo, the two are closely interrelated and will run in parallel. Our handling of these processes will be closely scrutinized. Enhancing ICANN’s accountability is key to the success of the IANA functions stewardship transition process. We must be accountable to the global community beyond our role as the administrator of the IANA functions....The two processes, however, will run on separate tracks. Though open to all, the accountability process will take place mainly within the ICANN community, whereas the process on the transition of the IANA functions stewardship will occur across multiple fora. ICANN’s role in the latter is also limited to that of a convener and facilitator...."

The full announcement on the accountability process can be found here.

The public comment period is open and the deadline for input is 27 May 2014 (23:59 UTC).

more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)

Follow @expvccom