Resources - ICANN: Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP):
The PICDRP addresses complaints that a Registry may not be complying with the Public Interest Commitment(s) in Specification 11 of their Registry Agreement.
[expvc.com Contributing Editor's Note: Specification 11 is "buried" at the end of the Registry Agreement (pp. 90-91 of a 92 page pdf--note that pagination is absent from pages 90-91--just go to the end of the document)--which you may be able to locate and download from the ICANN website here. From how ICANN has obfuscated all of this as much as possible from "public view," it appears ICANN really doesn't care about the "public interest" and when you actually find and read Specification 11 it looks like it was written by the DNA* -- actually in a sense it may have been since the current Executive Director of the DNA was "architect" of the new gTLDs program when he was Chief Strategy Officer of ICANN before his resignation due to a conflict of interest--the particulars of which ICANN has never disclosed to its multi-stakeholders. So much for transparency and accountability and the public interest!]
*UPDATE: a registry’s ability to amend or revoke its PICs and the lengthy, expensive, and adversarial process required to enforce PICs by the limited class of parties able to bring enforcement actions, does not protect the public interest! [See ICANN Business Constituency letter (pdf)].
Also Review the PICDRP [PDF, 208 KB]
Seeking Panel Members for New gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution - ICANN:
"ICANN plans to expand the Standing Panel responsible for administering the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP), which supports the New gTLD Program. Parties with relevant experience and the desire to serve the Internet community are invited to submit expressions of interest.
"PICDRP Standing Panel members play an important role in upholding the integrity of the Domain Name industry and protecting the public interest," said Akram Atallah, president of ICANN's Global Domains Division.
"The PICDRP is designed to serve the interests of the Internet community. When a report arises alleging that a registry has violated its public interest commitment(s) as outlined in its contract with ICANN, members of the PICDRP Standing Panel can be called upon to review the report, and if necessary, recommend remedies to ICANN. Therefore, all Standing Panel members must be impartial and independent.
"Download the official Call for Expressions of Interest [PDF, 110 KB] to serve on the PICDRP Standing Panel.
"ICANN welcomes applicants with international dispute resolution experience and a sound technical understanding of the Internet and the Domain Name System. Expertise in any of the following areas is also highly desired:
Contract interpretation
Cross-cultural issues
Cyber security
Judicial and/or legal work
Licensing
Online content
Public policy
Regulatory environments
Social research
Trademark protection"
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Showing posts with label public interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public interest. Show all posts
11 December 2014
30 October 2014
Cybercrime, Rogue Registrars: Is ICANN Unfit For Internet Governance?
Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show that thousands of complaints about suspicious online pharmacies and other websites in 2012 weren’t reviewed for months because ICANN stopped maintaining one of its computer systems.
Law-enforcement officials told ICANN that the website posed an immediate health risk. Less than 15 minutes later, ICANN responded in an email that the organization had “reviewed and closed your complaint.”
Axelle Lemaire, France’s secretary of state for digital affairs, says the “lack of transparency” at ICANN “is very worrying. When it comes to selling illegal drugs online, it’s the health of world-wide citizens at stake.”
“I don’t know how contractually we could do something different than we are doing,” says Akram Atallah, president of ICANN’s Global Domains Division... Mr. Atallah says employees are “doing a very good job.” ICANN’s overall budget is $101 million for the current fiscal year.
Former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz says ICANN needs continued oversight, partly because of its small compliance staff. Just 22 of the agency’s 300 employees are devoted to policing websites. An independent ICANN could be “dangerous for stakeholders, and more importantly, consumers,” says Mr. Leibowitz.
Law-enforcement officials told ICANN that the website posed an immediate health risk. Less than 15 minutes later, ICANN responded in an email that the organization had “reviewed and closed your complaint.”
Axelle Lemaire, France’s secretary of state for digital affairs, says the “lack of transparency” at ICANN “is very worrying. When it comes to selling illegal drugs online, it’s the health of world-wide citizens at stake.”
“I don’t know how contractually we could do something different than we are doing,” says Akram Atallah, president of ICANN’s Global Domains Division... Mr. Atallah says employees are “doing a very good job.” ICANN’s overall budget is $101 million for the current fiscal year.
Former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz says ICANN needs continued oversight, partly because of its small compliance staff. Just 22 of the agency’s 300 employees are devoted to policing websites. An independent ICANN could be “dangerous for stakeholders, and more importantly, consumers,” says Mr. Leibowitz.
(source of the above: Wall Street Journal)
Update: See the Economist: The Amazons of the dark net and Independent ICANN Could Be Dangerous, Needs Continued Oversight, Says Former FTC Chairman (domainmondo.com)
Update: See the Economist: The Amazons of the dark net and Independent ICANN Could Be Dangerous, Needs Continued Oversight, Says Former FTC Chairman (domainmondo.com)
ExpVC.com Contributing Editor's Opinion:
Here's one truism ICANN has yet to grasp: good governance is hard, but necessary. The Internet's days as a free-wheeling, unregulated marketplace are soon coming to an end. What the end result will look like is yet unknown, but the world re-discovered in 2008 that markets are not self-regulating, and there is a need, and place, for good, effective governance. This applies to the Internet as in all other sectors of public life. Of course, ICANN, a California corporation with no membership nor stockholders, and only a self-interested, self-selected Board of Directors which apparently owes a fiduciary duty only to the corporation itself, not employees nor stakeholders, is anxious to gain independence from all government oversight, without taking on any of the burdens (and costs) inherent in exercising such global authority and responsibilities. Whatever the outcomes of the IANA transition and ICANN enhancing accountability processes, if effective and responsible governance of the DNS and internet root zone, on a global level, from criminal activity is not included (to take just one example), it will not be long before governments throughout the world do whatever is necessary to wrest control of the DNS and internet, globally, or within their respective borders, in order to protect their own populations and public interest from ICANN's "hands-off, just pay me the money" approach to internet governance.
For a view of what real governance within the sphere that ICANN operates, looks like, see this search of US Federal Trade Commission actions. ICANN's source of authority, shield of immunity, and excuse not to govern, has heretofore been its contractual privity with the US government. Once that is gone, from what sovereign source of authority does ICANN have any legitimate claim to exercise authority over the global internet community, domain name registrants, registrars, registries, the DNS, and the internet root zone? No one has really given a good answer to that yet, but it will be a fertile area for litigation worldwide and other international disputes if left unanswered.
And apparently, neither ICANN's President of Global Domains Division (see quote above of Akram Attalah) nor anyone else at ICANN has a clue as to how ICANN, contractually, could do anything differently than it has been doing (or not doing). Perhaps, at a minimum, Mr. Atallah should consult with competent counsel who have FTC, or similar governance and regulatory experience, much of which is based solely on contractual terms.
On the other hand, if you are that clueless, perhaps you are unfit for internet governance.
Submitted by: Contributing Editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Here's one truism ICANN has yet to grasp: good governance is hard, but necessary. The Internet's days as a free-wheeling, unregulated marketplace are soon coming to an end. What the end result will look like is yet unknown, but the world re-discovered in 2008 that markets are not self-regulating, and there is a need, and place, for good, effective governance. This applies to the Internet as in all other sectors of public life. Of course, ICANN, a California corporation with no membership nor stockholders, and only a self-interested, self-selected Board of Directors which apparently owes a fiduciary duty only to the corporation itself, not employees nor stakeholders, is anxious to gain independence from all government oversight, without taking on any of the burdens (and costs) inherent in exercising such global authority and responsibilities. Whatever the outcomes of the IANA transition and ICANN enhancing accountability processes, if effective and responsible governance of the DNS and internet root zone, on a global level, from criminal activity is not included (to take just one example), it will not be long before governments throughout the world do whatever is necessary to wrest control of the DNS and internet, globally, or within their respective borders, in order to protect their own populations and public interest from ICANN's "hands-off, just pay me the money" approach to internet governance.
For a view of what real governance within the sphere that ICANN operates, looks like, see this search of US Federal Trade Commission actions. ICANN's source of authority, shield of immunity, and excuse not to govern, has heretofore been its contractual privity with the US government. Once that is gone, from what sovereign source of authority does ICANN have any legitimate claim to exercise authority over the global internet community, domain name registrants, registrars, registries, the DNS, and the internet root zone? No one has really given a good answer to that yet, but it will be a fertile area for litigation worldwide and other international disputes if left unanswered.
And apparently, neither ICANN's President of Global Domains Division (see quote above of Akram Attalah) nor anyone else at ICANN has a clue as to how ICANN, contractually, could do anything differently than it has been doing (or not doing). Perhaps, at a minimum, Mr. Atallah should consult with competent counsel who have FTC, or similar governance and regulatory experience, much of which is based solely on contractual terms.
On the other hand, if you are that clueless, perhaps you are unfit for internet governance.
Submitted by: Contributing Editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
28 September 2014
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;
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.
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.
More background info here: Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process - ICANN, including--
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.
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.
- 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
30 July 2014
Good Advice ICANN Ignored, INTA Green Paper Response, new gTLDs
The tragedy of the huge mistake ICANN made with flooding the DNS with 1000+ new gTLDs, can truly be put into perspective when one takes the time to review INTA's response (pdf) to the US government's green paper (pdf) -- its statements are as relevant in 2014 as when originally made in 1998 -- excerpts below (emphasis added):
"... INTA applauds the efforts of the [US government] Administration to seek comment from the public concerning the future of the Internet - the latest mode of global communication....INTA supports efforts by the U.S. Government to privatize the Internet and promote international participation in the domain name system.... INTA believes that the most important issues relating to administration of the DNS, including the policy for addition of generic top level domain names (gTLDs) and the guaranteed operation of an authoritative root server system are not technical. Decisions on these functions will have a critical impact on businesses and consumers using the Internet. They will have significant consequences for the stability and interconnectivity of the Internet and particularly for its utility as an effective medium for electronic commerce. In this respect, the Administration does not adequately recognize or acknowledge the damaging effects of loss of business and consumer confidence in the Internet as a result of changes which are likely to increase the potential for confusion and conflict over domain names... INTA favors the alternative single, shared registry model... with the registry operating on a cost-recovery basis and with competition between registrars. Under this model, the new corporation [ICANN] would be empowered to manage the gTLD name-space as a public resource, would be able to take its decisions in the wider public interest and would not be involved in the dubious practice of granting proprietary monopolies to commercial enterprises to control individual gTLDs... The Administration asserts that attempts to impose central order "risk stifling a medium like the Internet that is decentralized by nature and thrives on freedom and innovation". What the Administration appears to be reluctant to accept is that the inevitable consequence of unconstrained "freedom" (as sought by the Internet technical community) is chaos, confusion and anarchy where only the street-wise (in this case hackers and others with sufficient technical skills) can survive. Already, the exploitation of this "freedom" by those without principles or any sense of community responsibility has given rise to the problems of proliferation of illegal content (e.g. child pornography), security breaches (e.g.hacking and spoofing incidents like Kashpureff's hijack of the root-server), spam and copyright infringements, all of which undermine established real-world standards… The pressure to add new gTLDs has to date come predominantly from members of the Internet technical community. While INTA has made considerable efforts to bring "real-world" and commercial user views into the debate through its participation in IAHC and POC, overall it is clear that the concerns of ordinary businesses and consumers have not been given weight commensurate with the potential impact the addition of new gTLDs might have on their interests. The unconstrained proliferation of gTLDs will act to undermine the existing trademark system (we have already heard calls from members of the Internet technical community for domain names to be above trademark law, but to be "brands" at the same time.) In a San Francisco Chronicle article of January 31, 1998 entitled "Domain Name Plan May Result in Net Chaos"… No one benefits from consumer confusion, except, perhaps, those who seek to engender it….”
What really struck me in reading INTA's 1998 paper is how often it makes the same points I made recently. Oh well, maybe someday the global internet community will have a responsible and representative governing body over the internet DNS, guided by the wider public interest and governing the DNS as a public resource.
--report submitted by contributing editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
What really struck me in reading INTA's 1998 paper is how often it makes the same points I made recently. Oh well, maybe someday the global internet community will have a responsible and representative governing body over the internet DNS, guided by the wider public interest and governing the DNS as a public resource.
--report submitted by contributing editor, John Poole, Domain Mondo
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
22 June 2014
France, Portugal and Spain warn ICANN re: new gTLDs .WINE and .VIN
"the failure of ICANN to take due account of the wider public interest"*
"the lack of adequate redress mechanisms and, above all, the lack of accountability demonstrate the need for signficant reform of ICANN even before the current debate on the global Internet governance system comes to a conclusion."*
There is a storm brewing on the continent of Europe over ICANN's stated intention to delegate new gTLDs .WINE and .VIN -- *excerpt from letter of Axelle Lemaire, Secrétaire d'Etat au Numérique (French Deputy Minister for Digital Affairs) to Members of the ICANN Board of Directors --
For the full letter, see France's letter to ICANN:
https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/lemaire-to-icann-board-2014-06-18-en
But France is not alone -- see also --
Spain's letter to ICANN:
https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/ibanez-martin-to-chehade-2014-06-17-en.
and
Portugal's letter to ICANN:
https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/crato-to-icann-board-2014-06-18-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/crato-to-icann-board-2014-06-18-en
Uncle Sugar isn't going to cover for a dysfunctional ICANN anymore, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
And of course, Esther Dyson warned everyone about all of this in 2011, but no one listened.
08 June 2014
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:
"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."
"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?
"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..."...."
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
"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.
Follow @expvccom
16 February 2014
ICANN chastised by Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, and Evan Leibovitch
Think ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is operating in the public interest with transparency and accountability? Read the full letter at the link below (excerpts follow) --
Letter from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, and Evan Leibovitch to Cherine Chalaby | ICANN: "Letter from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, and Evan Leibovitch to Cherine Chalaby" Full copy of correspondence (pdf): http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-14feb14-en.pdf
Excerpts:
"....We echo the disappointment expressed widely within our communities that management and staff of ICANN’s new gTLD division do not believe that a public comment period on the PAB model is warranted. Protection of the public interest is inherent in ICANN’s mission and should not be subordinated to business concerns. ICANN committed in Section 3(a) of the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC)(http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) to “ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent”. Similar commitments to the public interest appear in Sections 4, 8(c), and 9.1 of the AOC....
Letter from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, and Evan Leibovitch to Cherine Chalaby | ICANN: "Letter from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, and Evan Leibovitch to Cherine Chalaby" Full copy of correspondence (pdf): http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-14feb14-en.pdf
Excerpts:
"....We echo the disappointment expressed widely within our communities that management and staff of ICANN’s new gTLD division do not believe that a public comment period on the PAB model is warranted. Protection of the public interest is inherent in ICANN’s mission and should not be subordinated to business concerns. ICANN committed in Section 3(a) of the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC)(http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) to “ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent”. Similar commitments to the public interest appear in Sections 4, 8(c), and 9.1 of the AOC....
"It is regrettable that the delayed posting of these documents meant that we were not able to correct some apparent mistakes, or misunderstandings. The topic of timely posting of staff materials remains a community wide concern, as having significant gaps and delays in providing information to the community on staff prepared briefing documents is inimical to transparency and accountability. We do not believe that staff accurately portrayed our presentation of the PAB model in oral remarks that stated that “the model represents a departure from the role of the registry operator as contemplated in the Applicant Guidebook and Registry Agreement”, or in the provision of background materials that selectively presented certain aspects of the initial PAB model rather than containing the complete five-page letter sent to you on September 25, 2013 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-to-chalaby-25sep13-en.pdf)....
"At a time when ICANN’s accountability and commitment to the public interest are being strongly challenged, effective measures that protect the public interest in regulated strings should be viewed as a foundation to credible defense of the multistakeholder model. The inadequacies of the proposed NGPC adopted measures to prevent widespread consumer deception through through new gTLD domains will be extremely harmful to ICANN’s credibility and reputation...." (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
"We also believe that ICANN should minimize any new monitoring or enforcement burden placed on public authorities, particularly at a time of strained governmental resources. ICANN has adequate financial resources to fulfill such inherent obligations given the large sums it has collected in new gTLD application fees....
"At a time when ICANN’s accountability and commitment to the public interest are being strongly challenged, effective measures that protect the public interest in regulated strings should be viewed as a foundation to credible defense of the multistakeholder model. The inadequacies of the proposed NGPC adopted measures to prevent widespread consumer deception through through new gTLD domains will be extremely harmful to ICANN’s credibility and reputation...." (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
12 December 2013
ICANN, self-interest, public interest
Well worth a second read --
Letter from Verisign's Chuck Gomes to ICANN's Fadi Chehadé
30 August 2013
Sender's Title: Vice President, Policy
Sender's Affiliation: VeriSign, Inc.
Issue: GNSO Discussion with ICANN CEO
File: gomes-to-chehade-30aug13-en [PDF, 3037kB]
more news links below
Follow @expvccom
Letter from Verisign's Chuck Gomes to ICANN's Fadi Chehadé
30 August 2013
Sender's Title: Vice President, Policy
Sender's Affiliation: VeriSign, Inc.
Issue: GNSO Discussion with ICANN CEO
File: gomes-to-chehade-30aug13-en [PDF, 3037kB]
more news links below
Follow @expvccom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
