Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance. Best regards, Rinalia Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance *Improving Contractual Compliance* About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance-28mar17-en.pdf>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies. At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/6...> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-AL...> , the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Part...> , the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20me...> , the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%2...> , the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC%...>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb...> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance. To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do. There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT). If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas! END
Thank you very much for this information Rinalia. I believe it would be of great benefit for Jamie to have a look and understand the work Garth has been doing on this matter. Maybe we should try to find a time to speak to Jamie on this? Best regards, León
El 11/04/2017, a las 13:35, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders,
FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance.
Best regards,
Rinalia
Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance>
Improving Contractual Compliance
About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance-28mar17-en.pdf>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies.
At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/6...> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-AL...>, the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Part...>, the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20me...>, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%2...>, the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC%...>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb...> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance.
To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do.
There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT).
If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas!
END
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi, Leon. I believe Jamie/Compliance is aware of Garth's work. If you think their understanding requires deepening via facilitated discussion, the ALAC (via its Chair) can request for a meeting/discussion with Jamie and his team. Those whom the ALAC believe can help facilitate the discussion can be requested to participate and support the discussion to enhance understanding. Best regards, Rinalia On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 at 11:37 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thank you very much for this information Rinalia.
I believe it would be of great benefit for Jamie to have a look and understand the work Garth has been doing on this matter.
Maybe we should try to find a time to speak to Jamie on this?
Best regards,
León
El 11/04/2017, a las 13:35, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders,
FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance.
Best regards,
Rinalia
Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance
*Improving Contractual Compliance*
About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance-28mar17-en.pdf>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies.
At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/6...> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-AL...> , the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Part...> , the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20me...> , the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%2...> , the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC%...>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb...> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance.
To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do.
There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT).
If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas!
END
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Excellent and noted. Thanks! Best regards, León
El 11/04/2017, a las 13:52, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi, Leon.
I believe Jamie/Compliance is aware of Garth's work. If you think their understanding requires deepening via facilitated discussion, the ALAC (via its Chair) can request for a meeting/discussion with Jamie and his team. Those whom the ALAC believe can help facilitate the discussion can be requested to participate and support the discussion to enhance understanding.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 at 11:37 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Thank you very much for this information Rinalia.
I believe it would be of great benefit for Jamie to have a look and understand the work Garth has been doing on this matter.
Maybe we should try to find a time to speak to Jamie on this?
Best regards,
León
El 11/04/2017, a las 13:35, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> escribió:
Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders,
FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance.
Best regards,
Rinalia
Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance>
Improving Contractual Compliance
About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance-28mar17-en.pdf>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies.
At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/6...> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-AL...>, the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Part...>, the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20me...>, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%2...>, the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC%...>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb...> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance.
To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do.
There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT).
If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas!
END
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Hi Rinalia, They're certainly aware of his work. Whether they have offered any reasonable or acceptable response is another matter. I have been in the same room where Garth has presented on numerous occasions; I would be polite in characterizing his reception as either hostile, dismissive, or an inability ot deal because of staff churn. I won't speak for Garth who can certainly state his own level of satisfaction. But in all the years I have been involved with ICANN, I still await what I would consider a good-faith engagement of him by ICANN's various compliance teams. Yet I remain optimistic given the new management. Having said that, it is fully possible that the problem lies not in the unwillingness of Compliance to act, but with the massively limited scope in which they can act. If the RAA enables certain forms of registrant or end-user abuse, the compliance team can't really do much to curtail it. And certain tools that the end-user community had hoped might come about -- notably, the so-called Public Interest Commitments -- have turned out to be nearly useless. What is (and has long been) badly needed is honesty and clarity. What is in scope for compliance and what isn't. Where ICANN can intervene and where its hands are tied. Diligence to act where it can, a commitment to at least decent publicly-targeted education in areas in which is constrained, and the research needed to recommend rule changes to close loopholes. - Evan
Hi, Evan. "Yet I remain optimistic given the new management." RAR: Yes. I believe this is the spirit of the times and I am seeing willingness to improve and preparation for improvement in ORG under Göran's leadership. "What is (and has long been) badly needed is honesty and clarity. What is in scope for compliance and what isn't. Where ICANN can intervene and where its hands are tied. Diligence to act where it can, a commitment to at least decent publicly-targeted education in areas in which is constrained, and the research needed to recommend rule changes to close loopholes." RAR: I believe this is where the CEO and Board focus would be in guiding Compliance. The At-Large could think about whether and how it would want to position itself with regard to outreach and education as next step discussions with the CEO and Jamie when they come to talk to the ALAC during ICANN meetings (or in between). RAR: Separate but related, it would be very helpful if the ALAC could compile issues (in brief/summary) where it thinks ICANN policy outcomes are weak from the end user and registrant perspective for discussions with the Management and the Board. With this we can engage in a systemic level discussion and figure out how to help improve the system as a whole. This would be a strategic level engagement that would supplement the ALAC's existing issues-based engagement. Something for the ALAC to consider. Best regards, Rinalia On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 at 1:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Rinalia,
They're certainly aware of his work. Whether they have offered any reasonable or acceptable response is another matter.
I have been in the same room where Garth has presented on numerous occasions; I would be polite in characterizing his reception as either hostile, dismissive, or an inability ot deal because of staff churn.
I won't speak for Garth who can certainly state his own level of satisfaction. But in all the years I have been involved with ICANN, I still await what I would consider a good-faith engagement of him by ICANN's various compliance teams. Yet I remain optimistic given the new management.
Having said that, it is fully possible that the problem lies not in the unwillingness of Compliance to act, but with the massively limited scope in which they can act. If the RAA enables certain forms of registrant or end-user abuse, the compliance team can't really do much to curtail it. And certain tools that the end-user community had hoped might come about -- notably, the so-called Public Interest Commitments -- have turned out to be nearly useless.
What is (and has long been) badly needed is honesty and clarity. What is in scope for compliance and what isn't. Where ICANN can intervene and where its hands are tied. Diligence to act where it can, a commitment to at least decent publicly-targeted education in areas in which is constrained, and the research needed to recommend rule changes to close loopholes.
- Evan
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Having said that, it is fully possible that the problem lies not in the unwillingness of Compliance to act, but with the massively limited scope in which they can act. If the RAA enables certain forms of registrant or end-user abuse, the compliance team can't really do much to curtail it. And certain tools that the end-user community had hoped might come about -- notably, the so-called Public Interest Commitments -- have turned out to be nearly useless.
What is (and has long been) badly needed is honesty and clarity. What is in scope for compliance and what isn't. Where ICANN can intervene and where its hands are tied. Diligence to act where it can, a commitment to at least decent publicly-targeted education in areas in which is constrained, and the research needed to recommend rule changes to close loopholes.
- Evan
There, you have it! First, deal with the scope bit with honesty and clarity. Then lets knock heads and see what we must track to measure and gauge - that is to say, indicators, data, metrics and process -, how we measure compliance and what we do to effect compliance. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim