ICANN: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group to Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) to Fulfill Secretariat Function

.CLUB Claims First Of New gTLDs To Reach 100,000 Domains Sold

.CLUB announced last Friday they are the first of the new gTLDs to reach 100,000 domain names sold – and in just over 100 days. It appears there are around 200 to 400 .club domains continuing to be registered every day.

While the gTLD is third on the list for most domain names registered, according to nTLDstats.com, the two above, .xyz and .berlin, have ran promotional campaigns where domains have been reportedly given away. In the case of .xyz, it appears this could be as many as four in five (81.1%) of the gTLDs registered, as this is the market share of Network Solutions for .club domains, and NetSol have been giving away the equivalent .xyz domains to existing .com registrants, unless they actively opt out of the promotion. For .berlin, a promotion that saw at least one registrar giving away domains that led to around 90,000 domains being registered during a promotion.

The registry is claiming .club is continuing its streak as the best-selling new domain extension. Entrepreneurs, brand owners, popular entertainers, corporations, domain investors and more from around the world have registered their own .CLUB websites, including entertainer 50 Cent’s 50InDa.Club, singer Demi Lovato’s Lovato.club, fitness expert Tiffany Rothe’s ICFC.club and many established Rotary, golf, country, yacht, auto, and sports clubs. According to data compiled by Namestat.org, there are already over 150 .CLUB websites in the Alexa top 1 million websites by traffic, more than any other new top level domain name.

In just over 100 days since its launch, .CLUB websites have continued to grow in popularity, with some very interesting names and website concepts. TheDudes.Club has launched as the “go-to place for all the things men find interesting;” LuckyDuck.club will soon launch as a gourmet coffee service; RoswellRotary.club, the Rowell Georgia Rotary chapter now forwards its old .com address to the new .club address; and many clubs, bloggers and businesses are registering from around the world every day.

“We’ve seen an increase in not only entirely new businesses springing up specifically around the .CLUB domain, such as shaving.club, but also from companies that are creating micro sites within their larger sites as a private, members-only address that offers additional benefits and privileges for `club’ insiders,” said Colin Campbell, president and CEO of .CLUB Domains. “We believe we have sold more than any other new domain because the word CLUB is so meaningful, and has recognition all over the world. It is easy to remember and allows for a great, catchy domain name.

Many premium .CLUB domains have also been sold to corporations and investors, including eat.club selling for $20,000; baby.club and Barbie.club each selling for $5,000; Ritz.club selling for $7,500; Mary Kay’s purchasing beauty.club and skincare.club; and many more. “But there are still many, many great .CLUB names still available for under $15 a year,” added Campbell.

Stress Test: Reconsideration Request on Accountability Process Filed with ICANN Board by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association

In a rapid follow-up to the unprecedented joint letter sent on August 26th by all members of the ICANN community questioning the proposed Accountability Process imposed by ICANN staff, three of the groups that signed that letter have now submitted a formal Reconsideration Request (RR) to the ICANN Board.

 

The August 29^th RR – submitted jointly by the Business Constituency (of which ICA is a member), Registry Stakeholders Group, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders group – requests that ICANN “confer with the community as soon as possible to address these concerns and amend its plan in such a way that the community input is taken into account as the plan goes forward. Specifically, ICANN should make modifications and clarifications to its plan to reflect the widely shared concerns of the community that can reasonably be implemented.”

The RR process is one of three currently available accountability measures available to ICANN stakeholders. The others are an Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman. ICANN’s Board has contended that the findings of an IRP are merely advisory and non-binding, and the Ombudsman has investigatory powers but no authority to make or change policy, administrative or Board decisions. The RR is thus the only means available for requesting that the Board intervene against arbitrary staff action that materially injures the ICANN community.

One of the ideas that have been floated for the evaluation of enhanced accountability measures recommended by the final Accountability Process is subjecting them to a hypothetical “stress test” to determine their likely efficacy. The manner in which ICANN’s Board handles this RR will constitute a real world stress test of the RR’s effectiveness as an accountability mechanism, and will inform the subsequent debate about necessary enhancements.

The RR contains multiple allegations of an extremely serious nature that add up to a searing critique of staff actions. Here is a sampling of the key charges, quoting directly from the RR:

• We have been materially and negatively affected by the staff’s decision to proceed with their proposed plan finalized in the 22-Aug-2014 ICANN announcement on Enhancing Accountability: Process and Next Steps. The staff-proposed plan did not properly take into account community concerns and did not provide a public comment period whereby the community could provide reaction to the staff plan. By taking this action, we have been materially harmed, as our questions, concerns, and ideas have not been adequately considered in the required multi-stakeholder process. Further, the community has no say in the appointment of the Public Experts Group (“PEG”) or the seven outside “expert” advisors to be appointed by the PEG. Yet, the seven advisors could steer consensus and outcome that will have a direct impact on the community….The staff-imposed plan is a top-down approach that calls into question the fairness of enhancing accountability process and the legitimacy of its decisions. It also creates a disturbing precedent that could embolden future actions by staff or the ICANN Board to circumvent and ignore the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process.
• This plan, imposed on the community without transparency and without the opportunity for public comment, creates inconsistency, disregards proper ICANN procedure, injects unfairness into the process, and defeats the purpose of the entire accountability examination.
• The staff development and imposition of its accountability plan as described above failed to uphold ICANN’s stated core values, mission, and promises that the accountability plan would be community driven and based on the public interest as expressed through a bottom-up process.
• ICANN neither sought nor supported participation in the development of this plan, and specifically excluded the community from the drafting and decision-making opportunities behind the staff plan.
• The formulation of staff’s plan went on behind closed doors and excluded the opportunity for the community to influence the plan. The community was not provided with the rationale for the staff plan until after the plan had been posted as final and its implementation had begun.
• The decision to impose this plan, to which so many in the community were openly objecting, showed a lack of neutrality, integrity, objectivity, and fairness on the part of staff. Staff failed to follow any documented policy and created its own plan without addressing the concerns about its conflict of interest in the matter.
• Staff failed to include the input of those who are most affected by staff’s accountability plan: the community members who participate at ICANN in hopes of getting a fair opportunity to influence policy in a democratic, open, transparent process.
• Staff failed to integrate the input obtained from the initial public comment period in the formulation of its plan. Then staff did not provide any opportunity for public comment on its plan once it was finally published. ICANN has failed to be accountable to the Internet community.
• Staff failed to operate in an open, transparent or fair manner.
• The views, concerns, needs, and ideas of the community ICANN was established to serve were not adequately considered in the formulation of the staff plan. Nor were ICANN’s Bylaws and promises to operate in an open, transparent, and bottom-up manner followed in this process.

The business sector and civil society have been coalescing around core Principles for the IANA transition and accompanying enhancements of ICANN accountability. The U.S. Congress will be returning from recess next week and will undoubtedly be hearing from Internet-related businesses and public interest organizations in regard to the staff-imposed Accountability Process, which seems designed the type of sweeping reforms contained in those Principles. This may result in sharp questioning of the NTIA – which must sign off on any proposed transition plan, and has publicly stated that it must be accompanied by acceptable accountability measures – about why ICANN has violated its own multistakeholder process and commitment to transparency. Additional Congressional reaction is also possible. As ICANN’s own Governmental Advisory Committee signed the joint letter we expect that many other governments have and will continue to receive similar input.

Meanwhile, ICANN’s CEO and Board Chairman sent an August 28^th response to the signers of the August 26^th letter. While the tone of their letter is civil it does not commit to any reopening of or revisions to the staff-imposed Process. Indeed, it appears to reiterate that the disgruntled parties should engage with the process as is:

We look forward to receiving your list of clarifying questions and concerns and we will respond in kind. As we have since this process began last spring, we appreciate all of the community comments received to date and encourage broad participation in the Cross Community Group – the key forum for generating the substantive issues this accountability process will address.

The process as outlined and complemented with the information in the FAQs enables the substantive dialogues to begin soon, to remain interrelated with the IANA Functions Stewardship Transition process well underway. (Emphasis added)

ICANN has also indicated its dedication to “full speed ahead” adoption and implementation of the staff-imposed Process through the August 28^th publication of a “Call for Candidates: Seeking Advisors to the ICANN Accountability & Governance Coordination Group”. The notice sets a very near-term deadline of September 10^th for the submission of nominations so that the Public Experts Group (PEG) – of which NTIA head Larry Strickling is one of four members – can complete the final selection of ”advisors” before the final 2014 ICANN meeting scheduled for October 12^th-16^th in Los Angeles. As noted above, one of the allegations in the RR is that “the community has no say in the appointment of the Public Experts Group (“PEG”) or the seven outside “expert” advisors to be appointed by the PEG. Yet, the seven advisors could steer consensus and outcome”.

Further questions arise regarding the staff decree that the Advisors are supposed to “bring an external, independent voice to this process to assure that best practices are brought in from outside of the ICANN community”. An accompanying FAQ sheds no light on what it means to be from “outside” the ICANN community, but makes clear that the “Coordination Group should make recommendations based on consensus taking into account advice of the advisors” and that the “advisors are not limited to engaging with the Coordination Group”. So it appears that these Advisors are supposed to have considerable impact on the final report and recommendations, and will have wide latitude to engage with parties outside the Coordination group – including governments and the media – but are to have little or no actual real world experience with ICANN. Many would rightfully ask why individuals who are part of the ICANN community, understand its operations and internal dynamics, and have expertise in relevant areas should be automatically deemed ineligible to act in this advisory capacity? This staff decision seems designed to ensure that the selected Advisors operate in the world of theory rather than actual ICANN practice.

The final sign that ICANN leadership may be circling the wagons and doubling down on the staff plan is its August 29^th announcement of a September 2^nd “Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Town Hall Meeting” taking place at the IGF meeting in Istanbul. It explains, “The Town Hall Meeting will provide an opportunity for an open dialogue to address and clarify any remaining questions about the Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Process.” (Emphasis added)

It is worth recalling that ICANN’s rationale for separating the IANA transition from the enhanced accountability processes was that the first involved the global stakeholder community while the second was an internal ICANN matter and therefore should be discussed and determined solely within the ICANN community. That rationale was questionable given that ICANN is wide open to participation by anyone. Some suspected that it was adopted in anticipation of trying to push the transition through before any significant accountability improvements were decided, much less implemented. But it is the official rationale put out there by ICANN.

Now that every group within the ICANN community has signed a joint letter expressing concerns about the substance of the fait accompli Accountability Process promulgated by staff as a on August 14^th — with that community letter promising additional detailed questions within seven days – that action has become the focus of intense disagreement between ICANN the corporation and its community. This dispute should be resolved internally.

While an ICANN session discussing and taking questions about the proposed Process during the IGF meeting seems unobjectionable, the notion that “all remaining questions” can be answered in a 90-minute session in Istanbul is preposterous. They cannot. There are too many questions to be answered in an environment that may be as much PR event as substantive dialogue. And this is a session at which many members of the ICANN community will not be present, while many in the audience will have little or no understanding of ICANN’s procedures and Bylaws and the events leading up to this impasse.

There can be little doubt that the attempt of ICANN staff to impose an Accountability Process over the objections of and without sufficient input from the ICANN community has introduced tremendous unnecessary stress into the entire relationship between the corporation and its community. How the Board handles this RR will determine whether that stress is relieved in a constructive manner or is further exacerbated. It will also be highly instructive on the questions of whether the present RR process provides any real accountability – and, if not, what should be developed to replace it.

 

The text of the RR follows:

 

Reconsideration Request Form

1. Requester Information

Name: Steve DelBianco, Business Constituency vice chair for policy coordination, on behalf of:

The Business Constituency;

The Registries Stakeholder Group; and

The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG)

Address: 1920 Virginia Ave, McLean, VA 22101 USA

Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Phone Number (optional): +1.703.615.6206

2. Request for Reconsideration of (check one only):

X Staff action/inaction

3. Description of specific action you are seeking to have reconsidered.

We ask the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to reconsider the ICANN staff’s imposition of its

“Accountability Plan”, the final version of which was posted to ICANN’s website on 22-Aug- 2014,

which is also the date that the staff Rationale for the plan was initially posted to the public.

Among others, the community groups represented here had called for a community-developed

Accountability Plan, and yet were not allowed to participate in the drafting of staff’s plan. At the

London ICANN #50 meeting in June, staff promised the community that the plan would be

community-developed, transparent, open, and bottom-up in its formulation. The plan imposed on 22-

Au-2014 had none of those promised attributes.

ICANN staff also failed to take into account the statement of the 4 GNSO Stakeholder Groups at the

London #50 meeting noting ICANN’s conflict of interest and calling for an independent accountability

mechanism to be developed. Indeed staff has not responded in any way to the statement of the 4

GNSO Stakeholders Groups in the London Public Forum in June. In summary:

1. The BCG should reconsider the staff decision to impose a plan of this significance without

allowing a public comment period on the staff-developed plan.

2. The BCG should reconsider the staff decision to impose a plan that failed to address widely

shared community concerns as expressed in numerous public comments, discussions at

ICANN #50, and stated community reactions to the infographic.

4. Date of action/inaction:

The final version of staff’s Accountability Plan was posted to ICANN’s website on 22-Aug-2014,

which is also the date that the staff rationale for the plan was initially posted to the public.

ICANN provided an “Infographic” foretelling certain aspects of its plan to select members of the

community on 14-Aug-2014. Community leaders told ICANN staff at that time that their groups were

not aligned with staff’s plan, and staff responded and stated it was “fixing” its plan. The community

waited for the so-called “fixed” plan, which was posted as Final on 22-Aug-2014, and which did not

address the stated community concerns in any meaningful way. The rationale for this plan was not

provided by staff until the plan was final on 22-August, at which point its implementation was already

Staff did not allow a public comment period for any community discussion, shaping, or even support

to occur for its Accountability Plan prior to its adoption and implementation. Staff did not address the

many concerns that had been expressed about ICANN’s conflict of interest in controlling the process

to hold itself “accountable”. Staff did not clarify the roles in its accountability plan to ensure that

stakeholders are the decision makers in matters they are subject to.

5. On what date did you became aware of the action or that action would not be taken?

On 22-Aug-2014, when staff finally posted the plan and its rationale to its website, and it did not

address community concerns as promised, and its implementation had begun, we became aware that

the plan staff intended to implement would not meet the community’s needs and redress measures

would be required.

6. Describe how you believe you are materially affected by the action or inaction:

We have been materially and negatively affected by the staff’s decision to proceed with their proposed

plan finalized in the 22-Aug-2014 ICANN announcement on Enhancing Accountability: Process and

Next Steps.

The staff-proposed plan did not properly take into account community concerns and did not provide a

public comment period whereby the community could provide reaction to the staff plan. By taking this

action, we have been materially harmed, as our questions, concerns, and ideas have not been

adequately considered in the required multi-stakeholder process.

Further, the community has no say in the appointment of the Public Experts Group (“PEG”) or the

seven outside “expert” advisors to be appointed by the PEG. Yet, the seven advisors could steer

consensus and outcome that will have a direct impact on the community, since the Coordination Group

is directed to make recommendations based upon consensus, taking into account the advice of the

advisors. Worse still, the staff-imposed plan would allow the ICANN Board to reject or selectively

accept recommendations of the Coordination Group, again bypassing the multi-stakeholder process.

The staff-imposed plan is a top-down approach that calls into question the fairness of enhancing

accountability process and the legitimacy of its decisions. It also creates a disturbing precedent that

could embolden future actions by staff or the ICANN Board to circumvent and ignore the bottom-up,

multi-stakeholder process.

7. Describe how others may be adversely affected by the action or inaction, if you believe that

this is a concern.

In addition to an adverse effect upon us, the staff-imposed plan has an adverse effect upon other

constituencies and upon other members of the community. This plan, imposed on the community

without transparency and without the opportunity for public comment, creates inconsistency,

disregards proper ICANN procedure, injects unfairness into the process, and defeats the purpose of the

entire accountability examination. All members of the ICANN community and users of the Internet

have a stake in the outcome of the enhancing accountability process and may be harmed if the process

does not take into account their views and is the result of a staff-imposed plan rather than a

community-driven plan.

8. Detail of Staff Action – Required Information

The staff development and imposition of its accountability plan as described above failed to uphold

ICANN’s stated core values, mission, and promises that the accountability plan would be communitydriven

and based on the public interest as expressed through a bottom-up process.

Specifically, the staff action is in violation of several core values in ICANN’s bylaws, whereby

ICANN promises it will behave in an open, transparent, and bottom-up fashion in the formulation of

the organization’s policies and operations.

In Article I, Section 2 of its Bylaws, ICANN promises to engage with the community in the

development of policy in a bottom-up and open manner at all levels. And in the Section 3 of its

Bylaws, ICANN promises to operate in a transparent and fair manner. Through this staff action,

ICANN has failed in its commitment to the Internet community that it will operate in an open,

transparent, fair, and bottom-up fashion in the formulation of crucial policy.

ICANN Bylaws – Article I, Section 2 – Core Values:

4. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional,

geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development

and decision-making.

ICANN neither sought nor supported participation in the development of this plan, and specifically

excluded the community from the drafting and decision-making opportunities behind the staff plan.

7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote

well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities

most affected can assist in the policy development process.

The formulation of staff’s plan went on behind closed doors and excluded the opportunity for the

community to influence the plan. The community was not provided with the rationale for the staff plan

until after the plan had been posted as final and its implementation had begun. At several GNSO

Council meetings since June and also during several “community leaders” calls, staff were asked to

engage with the community on the development of the plan and those requests were ignored.

8. Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with

integrity and fairness.

The decision to impose this plan, to which so many in the community were openly objecting, showed a

lack of neutrality, integrity, objectivity, and fairness on the part of staff. Staff failed to follow any

documented policy and created its own plan without addressing the concerns about its conflict of

interest in the matter.

9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the

decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected.

Staff failed to include the input of those who are most affected by staff’s accountability plan: the

community members who participate at ICANN in hopes of getting a fair opportunity to influence

policy in a democratic, open, transparent process. Staff kept all decision-making on the development

of the accountability plan behind closed doors and entirely within their control, beginning after the

initial comment period ended in June until the plan was imposed on the community in August.

10. Remaining accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that

enhance ICANN ‘s effectiveness.

Staff failed to integrate the input obtained from the initial public comment period in the formulation of

its plan. Then staff did not provide any opportunity for public comment on its plan once it was finally

published. ICANN has failed to be accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms such

as the public comment period by failing to consider those comments initially and by failing to permit a

comment period on the plan it developed internally. Providing an advance “infographic” to a small

handful of insiders and asking for their alignment does not meet an acceptable standard for public

ICANN Bylaws – Article III, Section 1 – Transparency

ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an

open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure

Staff failed to operate in an open, transparent or fair manner. Decisions and drafting were all done

internally by staff with no opportunity for the public to shape the staff plan in any meaningful way.

Staff’s rational was not provided until 22 August, after the plan was already considered final by staff

and its implementation was underway.

9. What are you asking ICANN to do now?

ICANN should confer with the community as soon as possible to address these concerns and amend its

plan in such a way that the community input is taken into account as the plan goes forward.

Specifically, ICANN should make modifications and clarifications to its plan to reflect the widely

shared concerns of the community that can reasonably be implemented.

10. Please state specifically the grounds under which you have the standing and the right to

assert this Request for Reconsideration, and the grounds or justifications that support your

The views, concerns, needs, and ideas of the community ICANN was established to serve were not

adequately considered in the formulation of the staff plan. Nor were ICANN’s Bylaws and promises

to operate in an open, transparent, and bottom-up manner followed in this process. The communities

represented here participate in the process with the expectation that the process will be fair, open,

transparent, and bottom-up in its operation. Many of our members spent significant time drafting and

submitting comments that were not considered by staff and the needs and objectives of our entire

stakeholder communities are not reflected in the plan developed by staff.

We legitimately represent the bottom-up process with our members devoting significant energy to

ICANN, and that gives us standing to assert this request for reconsideration.

11. Are you bringing this Reconsideration Request on behalf of multiple persons or entities?

(Check one)

X Yes: Business Constituency, Registries Stakeholder Group, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders

Group

____ No

11a. If yes, Is the causal connection between the circumstances of the Reconsideration

Request and the harm the same for all of the complaining parties? Explain.

Yes, our members are participants in the GNSO at ICANN and each of our groups signed on to the

London #50 Statement (below) of the GNSO regarding the ICANN accountability crisis.

Do you have any documents you want to provide to ICANN?

The ICANN #50 Statement of the GNSO 4 Stakeholder Groups on ICANN Accountability (26 June

2014):

http://www.internetcommerce.org/gnso-constituencies-issue-unanimous-joint-statement-on-icann-accountability/

Letter from ICANN communities on ICANN Accountability Plan:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140828_icann_community_issues_letter_questioning_icann_accountability/

(28 August 2014)

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Reconsideration Requests

The Board Governance Committee has the ability to consolidate the consideration of Reconsideration

Requests if the issues stated within are sufficiently similar.

The Board Governance Committee may dismiss Reconsideration Requests that are querulous or

Hearings are not required in the Reconsideration Process, however Requestors may request a hearing.

The BGC retains the absolute discretion to determine whether a hearing is appropriate, and to call

people before it for a hearing.

The BGC may take a decision on reconsideration of requests relating to staff action/inaction without

reference to the full ICANN Board. Whether recommendations will issue to the ICANN Board is

within the discretion of the BGC.

The ICANN Board of Director’s decision on the BGC’s reconsideration recommendation is final and

not subject to a reconsideration request.

29-Aug-2014

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
www.internetcommerce.org/accountability-stress-test/

Nominet takes another step to increase the security of the UK namespace

[news release] Nominet is boosting the security of the UK namespace to help protect it from attack and exploitation. As part of this, we’ll be offering two-factor authentication access to our Online Services (OS) to registrars later on this year. Two-factor authentication is a two-step verification process and provides an extra layer of security to users accessing online systems.

 

GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, ALAC and SSAC Issue Unprecedented Joint Letter Questioning ICANN’s Staff-Imposed Accountability Process

In another unpredicted development the entire community of ICANN stakeholders has sent a joint letter to CEO Fadi Chehade and the ICANN Board that strongly questions the “Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance – Process and Next Steps” document published by ICANN staff on August 14^th over widespread community objections. Signatories to the August 26^th letter (text below) include the GNSO Council and all of the GNSO’s stakeholder groups and constituencies, the Country Code Name Supporting Organization, the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee – and, most surprisingly, the Governmental Advisory Committee.

 

The letter states that “substantial questions and concerns remain unanswered, including around the process to date and the plan as constructed” and promises to deliver a “list of clarifying questions and comments within seven days” so that the signatories “not only understand the proposed approach, but are able to endorse it”. In other words, the current Accountability Process lacks the endorsement of any stakeholder group within ICANN.

In addition to this letter and the detailed questions to be delivered to ICANN next week, a number of ICANN stakeholder groups are preparing to file a formal Reconsideration Request to ICANN’s Board by the required 14-day (August 28) deadline in which the Board will be asked to review and reverse or modify the staff plan on the grounds that both its substance and the process by which it was created have materially harmed their interests. In an ironic twist those stakeholders are requesting that the Board hold the staff accountable for the alleged violations arising from publication and adoption of this non-endorsed Accountability Process.

Comments filed with ICANN as well as other community input indicated a strong preference for the establishment of a standard Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop the vital enhanced accountability measures that are supposed to accompany any proposal for facilitating the IANA functions transition away from US control, with experts available to facilitate the work of that CCWG at its request. Instead, ICANN’s staff are trying to unilaterally impose an overly complicated tripartite construct that  resembles a Rube Goldberg machine.

The staff proposal would segregate community discussion into an Accountability & Governance  Cross Community Group that would have a restricted ability to appoint participants to the Accountability & Governance Coordination Group in which the real decisions would be made, and which would issue a final report and recommendations. Meanwhile, a separate Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group (PEG) would appoint up to seven “experts” to the decision-making group. Many within the ICANN community view the proposed structure as designed to dilute the strength of any final recommendations for new enhanced accountability measures; especially the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism with the power to reverse decisions that violate ICANN Bylaws, and to discipline Board members and staff. It is highly doubtful that anything as robust as the “KEY PRINCIPLES FOR COORDINATION OF INTERNET UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS” that are attracting increasing support among Internet companies, trade associations, and civil society could ever emerge from such a process.

In addition, the staff-imposed Process contains this key language:

Following public comment, the Coordination Group will submit its final report to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board will immediately and publicly post the final report, consider whether to adopt all or parts of it, and direct the CEO to implement those parts it has accepted once that decision is made. ICANN staff should be involved in assessing feasibility and flagging implementation concerns as early as possible in the recommendation development process to allow for alternatives to be identified.  To be clear, ICANN’s goal is to have this work develop recommendations that are capable of implementation, and not solely to go through the exercise of a review.  Any decision by the Board to not implement a recommendation (or a portion of a recommendation) will be accompanied by a detailed rationale.

As described, ICANN staff will have free rein to assess “feasibility” and to flag “implementation concerns” throughout the process, and the Board will be able to cherry-pick the final recommendations and reject anything it cares to, with no standard for  rejection and subject only to the requirement that it provide some rationale for its decision. It is almost impossible to envision anything that imposes enhanced accountability  and binding disciple on the Board and staff resulting from such a Process.

On August 19^th, five days after imposing this Process as a fait accompli without any opportunity for public comment, ICANN announced the members of the PEG. They are:

• Mr. Brian Cute – CEO of The Public Interest Registry
• Ms. Jeanette Hofmann – Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, in Berlin, Germany
• Amb. Janis Karklins – Latvian Ambassador
• Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling – NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce

It is particularly disquieting to see Secretary Strickling on this list as it may be viewed by some parties as implying US government endorsement and support for an ICANN staff-originated  Process that was imposed over the objections and concerns of ICANN community leaders and that has subsequently elicited widespread pushback from the entire community. This is not how the much vaunted multistakeholder model is supposed to operate.

Just two months ago all of the GNSO constituencies issued a joint statement at ICANN’s London meeting in which they called for “the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community” and asked “the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative”.

Instead of supporting the community’s desire for an Accountability CCWG, the staff has indicated its apparent mistrust of the community through this attempt to impose its own Accountability Process that many believe will dilute any final recommendations — and even then allow the Board to reject any of them for any reason whatsoever. That staff attempt has resulted in this new and broader message to ICANN that extends well beyond the boundaries of the GNSO, including the GAC. It appears that ICANN’s staff is driving unprecedented unity within the ICANN community – unfortunately, that unity is based on unanimous and extremely serious concerns about staff actions on a matter of overarching importance.

The road ahead on Accountability will either follow the flawed path developed by staff – with active community participation in substantial doubt – or, even if significant modifications are achieved through united community resistance, the forthcoming Process may well be marred by lingering mistrust as a result of this high-handed staff action. All of this is very unfortunate and was totally avoidable if ICANN had simply allowed for bottom-up development and made adequate solicitation of public comment before adopting a final Accountability Process.

 

The text of the letter follows:

 

August 26, 2014

Fadi Chehadé, CEO, ICANN

Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

Dear Fadi, Steve and ICANN Directors,

Regarding ICANN’s announcement on August 14, 2014, Enhancing Accountability: Process and Next Steps, the Supporting Organisation, Advisory Committee, Stakeholder Group and Constituency chairs formally request additional time and opportunity to review and discuss the proposal contained in the announcement and in the subsequent FAQ’s published on August 22, so that next steps can be confirmed with increased support from the ICANN community.

Recognizing that the ICANN plan is a brand new construct that was announced without a corresponding public comment period, substantial questions and concerns remain unanswered, including around the process to date and the plan as constructed.

The undersigned Supporting Organisation, Advisory Committee, Stakeholder Group and Constituency leaders are currently engaging our respective groups’ bottom-up, consensus processes at this time to develop and finalize a list of questions that will require clarification or correction. As a result, additional opportunity is needed to ensure understanding of the proposal and the ways in which it is responsive to the interests and working methods of the ICANN stakeholder groups. We commit to submitting to ICANN staff our list of clarifying questions and comments within seven days of this letter.

Since the Enhancing Accountability process will affect ICANN’s future, as well as the range of stakeholders impacted by its decisions, we trust that this request will be received positively and lead to further engagement on this important matter to ensure that the SOs, ACs and SGs and Cs not only understand the proposed approach, but are able to endorse it.

Signed,

Elisa Cooper, Commercial Business Users, Commercial Stakeholder Group

Olivier Crépin-LeBlond, At-Large Advisory Committee

Rafik Dammak, Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

William Drake, Non-Commercial Users

Keith Drazek, Registry Stakeholder Group

Heather Dryden, Governmental Advisory Committee

Patrik Fältström, Security and Stability Advisory Committee

Byron Holland, Country Code Names Supporting Organization

Tony Holmes, Internet Service Providers, Commercial Stakeholder Group

Michele Neylon, Registrar Stakeholder Group

Jonathan Robinson, Generic Names Supporting Organization Council

Kristina Rosette, Intellectual Property, Commercial Stakeholder Group

This article was sourced with permission from the Internet Commerce Association website here.