ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review – Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy and Related Governance Documents

ICANN is opening this public comment forum to receive comment on revisions to the Board Conflicts of Interest Policy, Code of Conduct and Expected Standards of Behavior as well as a proposed Corporate Governance Guidelines prepared as part of ICANN’s ongoing review of its Conflicts of Interest and Ethics practices.

These documents were prepared after a review of ICANN’s corporate governance documents to make recommendations of how those could be improved in light of best practices in corporate governance, while still reflecting the needs of ICANN.

This work has been conducted in coordination with the Board Governance Committee, and represents just the beginning of the items that will be presented as part of the review of Conflicts of Interest and Ethics practices.

Over the year, heightened attention and scrutiny has been placed on how the ICANN Board addresses conflicts of interest, and on enhancing ICANN’s ethical culture. While ICANN has a robust conflict of interest policy and code of conduct in place, work has been ongoing with the community and experts to determine how these can be improved.

ICANN engaged two sets of outside counsel – one that is familiar with ICANN to perform a holistic review of our policies to make identifications of how they can be improved; and another set that is not familiar with ICANN to provide a review and recommendations for improvement. The documents provided for comment today arise out of one of those reviews.

ICANN has also engaged a team of international ethics experts to provide recommendations for the enhancement of ICANN’s ethical culture, drawing on international sources, including practices in other not-for-profit organizations.

As another facet of this work, the ICANN Board has already finalized and announced rules on how Directors with interests in specific New gTLD applications may participate in New gTLD-related discussions. In addition ICANN announced stringent communication rules for its staff regarding communications with potential new gTLD applicants.

This announcement was sourced from :

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-11mar12-en.htm

ICANN Seeks Expressions of Interest for Review of Accountability Mechanisms

ICANN is seeking expressions of interest to serve on a committee of independent experts to review ICANN ‘s Accountability Mechanisms.

The Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), organized under the Affirmation of Commitments, recommended that ICANN convene a group of experts to review ICANN ‘s Reconsideration and Independent Review Processes, such as the costs and spectrum of Board decisions subject to review. The ATRT also suggested that the group of experts review additional proposed mechanisms suggested in 2009 by ICANN ‘s President’s Strategy Committee. Finally, the ATRT called for a review of the standards for bringing a Request for Reconsideration.

Based on the nature of review mechanisms, as well as the separate ATRT recommendations relating to the Ombudsman’s office and its interaction with the Board, it is understood that this group of independent experts shall focus on a review of the Reconsideration process and the Independent Review process.

Further information on the accountability mechanisms subject to review and proposed qualifications for service on the group of independent experts is available here.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11mar12-en.htm

Third win for .XXX Owner : Denizbank wins DenizBank.xxx domain

An arbitrator with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has awarded DenizBank.xxx domain name to Denizbank.Denizbank submitted a complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on January 17, 2012,asserting legal rights over the domain.

Denizbank owns many trademark registrations for the “Denizbank” mark. The first DENIZBANK trademark registration in Turkey dates back to the year 1997. Therefore,they managed to demonstrate that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

The complainant contended in the complaint and managed to demonstrate that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith :

“The disputed domain name is fully identical to the Complainant’s trademark DENIZBANK. The Respondent has not even bothered to incorporate amendments or additions to the disputed domain name in order to eliminate the interference with the trademark DENIZBANK.

Finally, bad faith registration and use is further demonstrated by the fact that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale, first via email to the Complainant right the day after its registration, and second on two different auction websites at a price of USD 28,000 and YTL 38,500. “

The Panel ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant .

You can read the decision here .