Hi, ICANN StaffBoard hasn't really cared much when others asked for explanations on various decisions. I wonder whether they will care about this request either. Be nice to see real explanations for decisions - and the vote count with an indication of how each Board member voted. But if they don't comply, what is the worst that can happen? Will the NTIA withdraw from the AOC for failure to live up to the promise? And if they did, what consequence would that have. Maybe they could move the IANA contract elsewhere, but that is a long shot and I can't see any other possible consequence. As for determining that a study ifs fully or just half done, I expect that the ICANN StaffBoard can combine the several studies done and call them a completed study. In some respects studies are never done (e.g. the DADT studies according to US Republicans) and in some respects a study is complete when the one ordering the study says it is. A partial study A + follow-on studies b,c can easily be called a completed study. In some cases studies aren't complete under you see the answer you want, and every study request can find someone to produce the required results. Studies are useful clues, but never definitive and at best just a way to use time and employ researchers. Somehow, I can't avoid thinking that this is just a manifestation of an ATRT wound festering. a. On 3 Dec 2010, at 03:57, Joly MacFie wrote:

On my reading the NTIA didn't oppose new gTLDs, they just said that, according to the AoC, ICANN promised to 1) do a full ecomomic study - which they punted on half way thru the process, and 2) issue full reasoning behind their decisions - hardly the reality in the case of the drunken swing between extremes on VI.. Can't really argue!

I've blogged it at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1542

<http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1542>j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

...

Very interesting scenario. I assume the CEO made it clear that ICANN whould not only listen to one stakeholder group and ignore all others.

Actually, his blog entry sounded surprisingly like he was planning to ignore the one stakeholder that still has the power to shut ICANN down.

I got a whiff of that as well! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

Carlton, A shot across the bow. I have to agree. First consider the timing -- just before the ICANN meeting, when everyone going is on a plane with limited connectivity. This is true to form, Commerce always sends their letter at about this time. The letter is almost angry; it's certainly emotional. But all the events that it refers to happened weeks ago, surely long enough ago for a seasoned government official to cool down a bit. Second, consider the content -- the letter refers almost exclusively to the AoC, which is applauded by everyone (see http://www.icann.org/en/affirmation/affirmation-reaction.htm). It says that ICANN has to honor its commitments as defined by the AoC -- which I think everyone will agree it should. Here's what the AoC (see xxx) says in regard to gTLDs: 9.3 Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice: ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion. Essentially, since all of prior-to-implementation things have been addressed (to the greater or lesser satisfaction of various parties), the argument is over whether they have been "adequately addressed." Frankly, that's a matter of opinion. Some (me for instance) will say that they have addressed to death. Others will argue that they won't be adequately addressed until ICANN agrees with their viewpoint -- see, for instance, the endless series of economic studies that have failed to satisfy opponents of gTLDs. (There's a nice write-up of these by Milton Mueller at http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/3/4694980.html). The Department of Commerce seems to think that ICANN hasn't followed the AoC; ICANN seems to think it has. This is always the problem with vague promises. In the late 90s, DoC took over from Postel and the nascent IAHC and created ICANN. That was then, it was a different world. Now other governments feel they have an interest; they watch ICANN closely, they participate, they are beginning to understand the issues and to take positions that differ from those of the U.S. In particular, they don't like the idea of the DoC acting unilaterally (as it did in creating ICANN). And the AoC speaks to that too, by affirming the enhanced role of the GAC. The U.S. has been doing a lot of unilateral acting lately, seizing domains and so on, causing businesses to consider relocating, using ccTLDs that are outside of U.S. jurisdiction, and so on. I can imagine that this is not sitting very well with some governments who prefer multilateral decisions. I have to believe that the recent domain seizures will not strengthen the authority of the U.S. position with other GAC members. So, yes, it's a shot across the bow, but all it can do is express displeasure with ICANN's interpretation of its duties under the AoC. There is no obvious "violation." ICANN has just released the latest economic study, which says absolutely nothing (as such studies inevitably do when trying to predict the future). It can certainly easily supply additional reasoning for its VI decision, or any other decision it has made, and it probably should. But these are deficits that are easily rectified. In essence, the DoC seems angry at ICANN for announcing that it's going ahead with gTLDs without explicit DoC permission, which is specifically *not* required by the AoC. Antony On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

This ain't a whole helluva lot, to be honest. ICANN, the corporation - some would say 'trade association' should be included as definitional - has its thing going. And from time to time, it ignores folks we call 'stakeholders'. USG would not be the first so treated.

The response goes to show though that "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others".

This is the 'public' rumbling. After so many years of reading the 'tea leaves' that represent missives from official Washington, you get to know that the subtext - and the content conveyed in the sub-carrier channels - is what counts.

....a shot across the ICANN bow for effect......

Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin@ttcsweb.org>wrote:

...

http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/us-government-opposes-launch-of-new-gtld-progr... US DoC letter : http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf

US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena by Rod Beckstrom

We appreciate the many comments received so far on the draft Applicant Guidebook in its five full versions. We thank the community and all who contributed for their engagement, thoughts and opinions during the course of this process.

One of the most recent comments we have received is a letter today from the US Department of Commerce (DoC).

ICANN’s success and legitimacy derive from the multistakeholder model, the basis on which new gTLD policy was developed. The policy process decision to undertake this program was approved by the GNSO Council in 2007 and adopted by ICANN’s board of directors in 2008.

In the Affirmation of Commitments, the US government and ICANN reconfirmed our mutual commitment to the multistakeholder model. ICANN confirmed our commitment to solicit public comment and to hear all voices.

As with all contributions, ICANN will give DoC’s comments careful consideration as part of the implementation of the GNSO policy.

------------

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org