On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 11:38, Jeff Neuman via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

As I said Evan, I am an open book on this one. If you have any questions, ask them. But putting aside the whole NFT question, perhaps you may want to focus on the Accountability Mechanisms and ICANN’s retaliation against anyone that wants to use them. Even if you hate the TLD i am involved with. Even if you hate NFTs or New TLDs in general.

Hate is a strong emotion, and nothing to do with ICANN has ever warranted such a level of passion. I have no questions because I don't care. I have no stake in this drama, nor do the end-users that ALAC is mandated to speak for. Non-registrant end-users are not impacted at all. Registrant end-users are only impacted to the extent that the TLDs associated with this dispute must be stable if/when launched and that 2LDs registered under them resolve properly and have adequate protections against hijacking and abuse.

Is it right for ICANN to retaliate when one files a reconsideration request?

Obviously the dispute is important to you, but I (and end users) have no horse in this race. If you wish to add one more item to the lengthy pile of things ICANN does or has done badly, be my guest. - Evan

On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 16:26, Jeff Neuman via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Perhaps this is too idealistic and corny and perhaps you think I am full of it.

Remember, you opened this box. Don't take it personally. The whole domain industry is full of it, and that even worse it deeply believes its own bullshit. I witnessed first hand the hopelessness and futility of those who believed that a TLD could define, sustain or create a community. There have been plenty of aspiring TLD-based community builders such Thomas and his " connecting.nyc" scheme, or Annalisa whose involvement in dot-green hit a wall in 2013 when -- as I'd feared in my own comments at the time -- it inevitably became a greenwashing tool. A decade ago I myself was waist-deep in the doomed Applicant Support program, which limited participation to community TLD applications and ended up so terrified of gaming that it had qualifications that nobody could meet. I should have known better at the time but learned a great deal from the experience. The loudest lesson was that the whole TLD-as-community mantra is utter balderdash, pitifully pursued by dreamers and mercilessly exploited by the industry. Dot-music, dot-gay, dot-pro and the 2009 "CityTLD Constituency" project are other examples of registry schemes that promised the stars but delivered (at best) meterorites. And as we have seen from too close a distance, even the one TLD that we *thought* was a community -- dot-org -- was not safe from attempted manipulation by a conspiracy between former ICANN staff, investors and ISOC. In other words, we've heard this song before; so please spare us a refrain, regardless of its musical style or its new iteration of fairy dust. Internet domains are commodities that may serve communities -- incidentally -- but will never define or sustain one alone (especially when *real* community-building tools such as Discord are available for free). Can we once and for all stop the charade that TLDs are more than they are? As the immortal Judy Sheindlin once said (even before she went on TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. - Evan

Dear Barry, oh what a great trip into memory lane! Thank you! One thing you did not mention, though, is that back then there were Usenet demi-gods who used to be able to keep the whole thing sane and together. When these retired/moved on, Usenet started declining. I don't think there are net demi-gods in domain names, are there? Kindest regards, Olivier On 02/01/2022 07:31, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

Re: TLDs and communities

From: Evan Leibovitch via At-Large<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

...

I witnessed first hand the hopelessness and futility of those who believed that a TLD could define, sustain or create a community. Back in the days of Usenet, the 1980s mostly, which had millions of users and eventually over 100,000 discussion topics the issue of when to add a new topic was a constant, lively issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Discussion groups were "tree" organized so you had rec for recreation, rec.sports, rec.sports.baseball, etc.

For a while there were only eight top level topics (rec, comp [computer], talk, sci, ...), plus many regional (ne for new england, uk, and so on), and quite a few informal, unblessed top level topics such as "alt" which existed outside the mainstream governance.

(Note: There was earlier history, net.*, but it adds nothing to this.)

It should sound a little familiar.

How were new topics created?

By an open discussion and vote on certain designated administrative discussion groups. Other than that there really was no governance structure.

An important bit of wisdom gained was that you could not create interest in a topic by creating a group for it.

The most compelling reason to create a new group was to split off discussion traffic which was overwhelming another, more general group.

So rec.sports.baseball might sprout rec.sports.baseball.worldseries because the former was being overwhelmed with world series discussion.

We knew from experience back then, the 1980s, that you could not create interest or community by creating a topic category for it.

Attempts failed repeatedly until it became a governing principle.

You (dear reader) may find that unintuitive but that was what actual experience taught us.

P.S. An expression that arose from Usenet was "Eternal September":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

In simple terms students, millions, arrived every September, got access to Usenet, and began imagining what the rules for things like newsgroup creation were or ought to be. Every year.

Then AOL added Usenet and it became "Eternal September", the academic schedule no longer throttled the flood of new accounts.

Unfortunately some of these TLD discussions have that "Eternal September" feel to them.

"I don't want to hear YOUR opinion! I want to hear MY opinon coming out of YOUR mouth!" -- some wag

Parminder: I think you play fast and loose with how you wish the internet were run and how it actually does run. The (former) president of the United States was deplatformed from Twitter and Facebook, as was a US congressional rep today by Twitter. Web sites are removed regularly from the DNS largely based not on some great juridical or legislative process but by political pressure or sometimes just the voluntary distaste of registrars and/or registries. China runs a "Great Firewall" again not as a product of some broad consensus, particularly not any which extends even one inch outside its own borders. The only illusion of any lack of "demi-gods" arises from the inherent amorphous chaos of the net's activities, not some plan or intention. On January 2, 2022 at 14:11 at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org (parminder via At-Large) wrote:

No disrespect intended, but whoever thought and fantasied that demi-gods could govern the Internet and Internet-mediated reality were the original sinners :)

I am happy there were and are no demi gods for domain names or anything subsequent ... The current 'we the good and responsible people' based institutions around Internet/ digital are bad enough. I wonder if these are inheritors of the 'demi-god' thinking, or at least justify themselves upon it .. What with multi-stakeholderists, the insane belief in the demi-god-ness of the start-up whizkids -- in developing countries they wish to and are often allowed to run IT ministries, and so on.  I much prefer democracy of perfectly ordinary people, and leaders that believe in democracy of perfectly ordinary people. ..

(Yes, good and capable people do matter everywhere, and they matter a lot. But right institutions may matter more.)

parminder

On 02/01/22 1:39 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large wrote:

Dear Barry,

oh what a great trip into memory lane! Thank you! One thing you did not mention, though, is that back then there were Usenet demi-gods who used to be able to keep the whole thing sane and together. When these retired/moved on, Usenet started declining. I don't think there are net demi-gods in domain names, are there? Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 02/01/2022 07:31, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

Re: TLDs and communities

From: Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

I witnessed first hand the hopelessness and futility of those who believed that a TLD could define, sustain or create a community.

Back in the days of Usenet, the 1980s mostly, which had millions of users and eventually over 100,000 discussion topics the issue of when to add a new topic was a constant, lively issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Discussion groups were "tree" organized so you had rec for recreation, rec.sports, rec.sports.baseball, etc.

For a while there were only eight top level topics (rec, comp [computer], talk, sci, ...), plus many regional (ne for new england, uk, and so on), and quite a few informal, unblessed top level topics such as "alt" which existed outside the mainstream governance.

(Note: There was earlier history, net.*, but it adds nothing to this.)

It should sound a little familiar.

How were new topics created?

By an open discussion and vote on certain designated administrative discussion groups. Other than that there really was no governance structure.

An important bit of wisdom gained was that you could not create interest in a topic by creating a group for it.

The most compelling reason to create a new group was to split off discussion traffic which was overwhelming another, more general group.

So rec.sports.baseball might sprout rec.sports.baseball.worldseries because the former was being overwhelmed with world series discussion.

We knew from experience back then, the 1980s, that you could not create interest or community by creating a topic category for it.

Attempts failed repeatedly until it became a governing principle.

You (dear reader) may find that unintuitive but that was what actual experience taught us.

P.S. An expression that arose from Usenet was "Eternal September":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

In simple terms students, millions, arrived every September, got access to Usenet, and began imagining what the rules for things like newsgroup creation were or ought to be. Every year.

Then AOL added Usenet and it became "Eternal September", the academic schedule no longer throttled the flood of new accounts.

Unfortunately some of these TLD discussions have that "Eternal September" feel to them.

"I don't want to hear YOUR opinion! I want to hear MY opinon coming out of YOUR mouth!" -- some wag

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

One more thing, writ much larger...

putting aside the whole NFT question, perhaps you may want to focus on the Accountability Mechanisms

Maybe someone else in ALAC will take a bite of this, but not I. ICANN hasn't had any real public accountability in decades, dating back to when direct Board elections were eliminated. The "Empowered Community" is a pure exercise in Orwellian doublespeak; under current frameworks the inmates are in full control of the asylum. So if the current "bad" activities indicate a gap in such self-accountability, those of us outside the bubble can be forgiven for shedding no tears. ICANN is publicly unaccountable by design, and the domain industry of which you're a part is an architect of that design. So don't come pleading for help just because that unaccountability now works against *you*, in much the same way as it has worked against the public interest as long as most here can recall. - Evan

Just a correction, I think i was a member of something to do with perhaps the CWG as I helped establish the SLAs for IANA as part of the transition. I Just want to make sure I corrected the record (i.e., admit mistakes) if that technically was part of work stream 1. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 6:07 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: ICANN At-Large list Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms Evan, I was not involved in the Accountability Mechanisms for ICANN. I now wish I was. But I was not on the CCWG because (a) i did not have the proper time to commit and (b) there were many qualified people doing their best like Jonathan Zuck, Steve Delbianco, Keith Drazek, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Leon Sanchez, and so many others - Sorry if I left you all off. And though I was part of the RySG and the GNSO Council, I believe (I hope) when there was an issue brought to me, I did my best to help address. Again, I have always tried to be fair and at the same represent my then-clients. It is easy to try and call me out and then dismiss me, but perhaps you can ask a question that I can respond to? I have worked closely with many of you, and if after working with me, you believe as does Evan, then that is your prerogative of course, and I would love to know your concerns. I will not, however, engage in a battle of name calling as that is not me nor is it productive. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:55 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: ICANN At-Large list Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms One more thing, writ much larger... putting aside the whole NFT question, perhaps you may want to focus on the Accountability Mechanisms Maybe someone else in ALAC will take a bite of this, but not I. ICANN hasn't had any real public accountability in decades, dating back to when direct Board elections were eliminated. The "Empowered Community" is a pure exercise in Orwellian doublespeak; under current frameworks the inmates are in full control of the asylum. So if the current "bad" activities indicate a gap in such self-accountability, those of us outside the bubble can be forgiven for shedding no tears. ICANN is publicly unaccountable by design, and the domain industry of which you're a part is an architect of that design. So don't come pleading for help just because that unaccountability now works against you, in much the same way as it has worked against the public interest as long as most here can recall. - Evan

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 04:30, parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Evan, since I like to look forward, that also makes me ask you -- what would be your conception of a publicly accountable ICANN.. No, i dont need the full architecture... Just what was missing and what should be, at a larger framework level . But it is fine if you havent thought about it yet in that way.. . thanks, parminder

Getting further off-topic, but now entertaining. Like Olivier, I enjoyed Barry's Usenet history and was brought back to days of Telebit modems, UUCP, and the nightly news dump. I myself ran some of those newsgroup elections, and was an occasional colleague of one of those demi-gods, Henry Spencer from the University of Toronto. I recall things being more structured than Barry did, thanks to the loose assembly of demigods known as the "Cabal" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal>. But... back to Parminder's question. Bashing is easy, constructive solutions are always far tougher. I don't have a coherent and complete architecture, but there are a few principles I would like in a re-envisioned domain manager/regulator. I really can't separate these into "accountability" and "non accountability" measures since there's at least some A&T rationale baked into all of them: - Fuller (ie, complete) separation of ICANN's technical and political roles. That means that issues such as root-server coordination and security are better handled by groups like IETF - A governance model such that the public interest comprises the decision-makers and the industry players are advisors. This of course represents a 180-degree swap of the current situation in ICANN but is more in line with normal governance elsewhere. - A "use it or lose it" regime for domains similar to what exists for trademarks, complete with aggressive anti-squatting policy (OK, maybe this one doesn't have much to do with A&T but it's critical) - The price governments pay for a seat at this table is making domain use and allocation subject to a treaty that ensures interoperability and heavily constrains domain takedowns. That would avoid bullshit such as the "Universal Acceptance" initiative, which was created to beg the world to honour ICANN's policies because right now everything is taken in (diminishing) good faith. A treaty would also eliminate ICANN's coy "we're not a regulator" whining and enable credible enforcement. - Creation of a financial model such that the org that regulates domain names isn't dependent on their volume or rental fees for its sustainability - And finally, a Nominating Committee that actually *nominates*. That is, it creates a slate of names for consideration by electors rather than choosing the winners itself. I like the CIRA dual-slate model that allows for a Nomination Committee slate while enabling a second slate of "nominations from the floor" for people who are popular but shunned by the NomCom. Sorry you asked? - Evan

[ As this is evolving into a personal request, I'll take further discussion offline with Parminder ] On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 12:00, parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I am happy to explore working with you, as IT for Change and for the global coalition Just Net Coalition to develop them further and do fining-tune, polishing, detailing, etc, through an international working group made from both the digital activist field and global NGOs and movements in different sectors from across the world. And following development of a common set of principles, take side global sign ons from public interest groups from all over the world. I assure you that we would get imagined support and endorsements.

Very cool. I'm happy to participate and will work with you to figure out the best way to do this. These days Internet Governance has taken a distant back seat to my other activities involving open source software, organic agriculture, and the occasional podcast. But if the right opportunity comes along, anything's possible. In another thread somewhere I expressed contempt for the IGF and dismissed your opposition to the UN Secretary General's plans to meddle in it. This stems from my perception that the important work you describe above -- to envision a better way to do governance, something that's neither ICANN's industry capture nor ITU's state capture -- was IGF's singular job, and it has spectacularly failed at that job. If there's a better path to accomplish this then good for all of us, but this was honestly the function I expected IGF to serve and all I see from it is a wasted decade. - Evan

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 19:17, Carlton Samuels via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Very thoughtful engagement here and for sure, all the top ones are listed by Evan. I think he missed just one thing, how to determine what is a conflict of interest. Because there is a real need to reassess how that is determined in ICANN councils.

As you indicated, there really is no effective "conflict of interest" policy in ICANN, just a "statement of interest" policy; everything is fair game so long as you declare. Having *any* community CofI that required recusals and declarations at each meeting would be a step in the right direction; it would also decimate the GNSO as we now know it. But the biggest conflict of all is ICANN's own. Its revenue derives almost completely from the volume of extant domains from which it derives rent. Thus any public-interest policy which might curtail that rent (such as measures against squatting or disposable domains, or a measured approach to TLD expansion) could be seen as detrimental to ICANN's sustainability; Board members, whose sole fiduciary duty is to ICANN itself, would be obliged to oppose any such potential for shrinkage. - Evan

I've been watching this thread.  It's another cycle of conversations that have occurred previously, and that were ignored. Let's face it: Internet governance of today is a mud made from several elements, among which are:    - Pollyanna-ish naivete about "netizens" and 1960's Grateful Dead theories of how we can all live together in peace and perfect harmony.    - Clever, hard-nosed, profit oriented opportunists.    - Reagan/Thatcher notions that regulation by a government is bad, but regulation by a private body is good (and completely non-informed by consideration of the excesses of private bodies ranging from the British East India Company to Standard Oil to Google.)    - The abandonment of the belief that governance ought to be by the people and for the people and replacement of that belief with one that elevates selected (often industrial) "stakeholders" into positions of inflated influence and control. I've written several pieces about how we ought to re-read things from the late 18th century regarding structuring governance so that it is somewhat self-limiting. But the most important is this:

First Law of the Internet

+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way   that is privately beneficial without being publicly   detrimental.

   - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall      be on those who wish to prevent the private use.

       - Such a demonstration shall require clear and          convincing evidence of public detriment.

   - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent      as to justify the suppression of the private activity.

There are other things from the past, such as this from 2004: _/Structural Principles For Internet Governance /_- https://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-structural-principles-for-internet-g... /_ And see my list of other short essays (or blog items) under the heading "Internet Governance" at https://www.cavebear.com/documents/ BTW, I agree with Evan regarding ICANN's "nominating committee"; it is a relic, a techno-paternalist chunk of machinery that seems almost as if lifted from a 19th century colonial playbook written by King Leopold or Queen Victoria.         --karl-- _/ /_

+1 Evan On 31 Dec 2021 12:25 am, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large wrote:

I am aware of harm to people coming from misuse of blockchain and am deeply suspicious of any organisation using it right now. Anyone interested in this subject is invited to first read this article from Kevin <http://www.domainincite.com/27303-icann-is-blocking-23-gtld-transfers-over-b...>. It alludes that there are large issues at play suggesting yet another alt-root attempt, this time involving NFTs.

I am personally not impressed by this charm offensive, nor with attempts to sway opinion in the absence of due process. A proper investigation, should ALAC desire it, should consult multiple parties and I'm sure that the registries Jeff represents will be heard from at the appropriate time.

Since I think that most new gTLDs are a sad sketchy joke anyway, my initial instinct is that the parties all deserve each other and that non-registrant end-users are not impacted by this drama.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56

On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 10:47, Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

All,

I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Please seehttps://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... <https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...>.

This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately).

What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow.

———————

There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied.  In short, ICANN has taken the position that:

A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis. ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.

B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action.

————-

This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain.  Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does.

——————

If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss.  I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com <Http://www.jjnsolutions.com>

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On 12/30/21 10:01 AM, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large wrote:

3. ... based on my experience with ICANN processes, a 4 month delay is a mere second in ICANN time. I would start complaining only after 4 years.

An apt summary of the speed of ICANN procedures may be found in the works of Charles Dickens, most particularly Chapter 10 of /Little Dorrit/: "Containing the whole Science of Government"  (See https://www.cavebear.com/archive/cavebear/containing_the_whole_science_of_go... ) Here are the first two paragraphs:

The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government.  No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office.  Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart.  It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office.  If another Gunpowder Plot had been discovered half an hour before the lighting of the match, nobody would have been justified in saving the parliament until there had been half a score of boards, half a bushel of minutes, several sacks of official memoranda, and a family-vault full of ungrammatical correspondence, on the part of the Circumlocution Office.

This glorious establishment had been early in the field, when the one sublime principle involving the difficult art of governing a country, was first distinctly revealed to statesmen.  It had been foremost to study that bright revelation and to carry its shining influence through the whole of the official proceedings. Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving--HOW NOT TO DO IT.

    --karl--

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022, 16:55 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

For a more recent explanation of the workings of Governments (and governing bodies should take note), may I suggest a UK Series "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" which has been qualified by many as being a documentary about government, rather than comedy. For a few relevant snippets to our conversation: What is government: https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o

and

excuses: https://youtu.be/6Y4PEqvk0Jg

+1

Of course I recommend you get the whole series to watch. Then you'll be much less bothered about how slow ICANN is.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 30/12/2021 19:16, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:

On 12/30/21 10:01 AM, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large wrote:

3. ... based on my experience with ICANN processes, a 4 month delay is a mere second in ICANN time. I would start complaining only after 4 years.

An apt summary of the speed of ICANN procedures may be found in the works of Charles Dickens, most particularly Chapter 10 of *Little Dorrit*: "Containing the whole Science of Government" (See https://www.cavebear.com/archive/cavebear/containing_the_whole_science_of_go... )

Here are the first two paragraphs:

The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office. If another Gunpowder Plot had been discovered half an hour before the lighting of the match, nobody would have been justified in saving the parliament until there had been half a score of boards, half a bushel of minutes, several sacks of official memoranda, and a family-vault full of ungrammatical correspondence, on the part of the Circumlocution Office.

This glorious establishment had been early in the field, when the one sublime principle involving the difficult art of governing a country, was first distinctly revealed to statesmen. It had been foremost to study that bright revelation and to carry its shining influence through the whole of the official proceedings. Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving--HOW NOT TO DO IT.

--karl--

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Good Questions Hank. 1. The issues with .hiphop are contained in the Reconsideration Request found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-reque.... I am not avoiding answering the question, but there are 25 pages of issues and an addition dozen or so other pages of facts. 2. I do not believe that my position with Dot Hip Hop, LLC as its Chief Legal Officer and owner of a small minority interest of the company presents a conflict. I was put in those positions (especially the ODP Liaison) because of my knowledge, skill, and experience with the PDP for the next round. (Dot Hip Hop, LLC was in the 2012 round). One other note, I did not update my Statement of Interest because I was waiting for the actual approval of the assignment request before disclosing. Since Dot Hip Hop, LLC is a shell entity without any assets until ICANN approves the assignment, I didn’t disclose. ICANN was supposed to have approved the Assignment request in October and if they had met their own deadline, I would have disclosed my position prior to getting those positions. I have committed to performing those roles with independence, openness an transparency and believe that I have done that to date. If anyone believes otherwise, I would be happy to address, and if required, would step down. I am not being paid by anyone in serving in these leadership roles and do them both on a volunteer basis. I like to serve the ICANN Community and would like to continue to make it a better place. But, it is volunteer work that I would give up if anyone honestly believes there is a conflict. If you have any concerns, let me know. I truly am an open book. I think at one time ICANN called me a “Bad M$#%F#$%” because I tell everyone exactly what is on my mind. I dont believe in secrets (unless required by law or in serving as an attorney) 3. LOL on 4 months vs 4 years. THe average turnaround time for an assignment request for the big players is less than 60 days. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:01:41 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms On 30/12/2021 17:46, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote: I have no opinion on this matter but have a few newbie questions: 1. Based on https://icannwiki.org/.hiphop - what is the issue with .hiphop? 2. Based on https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/jeffrey-j-neuman-appointed-to-internet-lea... isn't it a conflict of interest on your part? 3. Based on https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... you state "following ICANN staff inaction (for its over four-month delay) of its Assignment Request for the .hiphop Registry Agreement." - based on my experience with ICANN processes, a 4 month delay is a mere second in ICANN time. I would start complaining only after 4 years. Regards, Hank NB The opinions or lack of opinions expressed above are solely my own

All,

I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Please seehttps://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... <https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...>.

This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately).

What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow.

———————

There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied. In short, ICANN has taken the position that:

A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis. ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.

B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action.

————-

This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain. Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does.

——————

If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss. I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On 31/12/21 4:26 am, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote:

FYI, I have updated my At-Large SOI and GNSO SOI to disclose the propose future role as Chief Legal Officer of Dot Hip Hop, LLC the future registry operator for .hiphop.

I apologize for not having done this before, but I was waiting for the assignment to be approved.  We filed it 141 days ago.

A conflict of interest does not arise when you are actually officially assigned a position etc, it arises when you start to engage with an activity -- applying for the assignment in this instance -- that, as here, directly conflicts with your public interest roles in At-Large , GNSO etc.To explain further if this is still unclear to you: At-Large and GNSO need to know it when you were actively pursing some commercial interests in applying for a gLTD etc, and not latter when it is already assigned. Is it not so very simple and straight-forward! How the 'multistakeholderist community' reads this democratic vestige of the idea of 'conflict of interest' is absolutely a disgrace, and dishonor to all those who fought for and built democracies. As I read Jeff's email below of Dec 30th, my head spins as to how hallowed concepts like 'conflict of interest' can be mauled in self-defense. (It is the MSist sin when they conflated corporate governance with public governance, whereby the thin half ethics of the former are employed as the foundations for what has to be public governance of some public functions. Although these practices do not pass even the light corporate governance ethical tests.) To have someone so deeply involved with shaping new forms and business models of gTLD, and making direct money out of it, as GNSO's liaison to GAC and to ICANN stuff -- nothing personal here, but it makes my democratic guts retch in sheer horror. This is multistakeholderism for you! A pall bearer for the elite who have always felt popular democracy as a thorn in their side! parminder PS: As should be obvious, I have nothing against people dong businesses like Jeff is into, but wanting to then also be one of the key people in regulation/ governance systems for those business is what absolutely gets my goat.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, December 30, 2021 3:18 PM *To:* Hank Nussbacher; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms   Good Questions Hank.

1.  The issues with .hiphop are contained in the Reconsideration Request found here:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-reque... <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-reque...>.  I am not avoiding answering the question, but there are 25 pages of issues and an addition dozen or so other pages of facts.   2. I do not believe that my position with Dot Hip Hop, LLC as its Chief Legal Officer and owner of a small minority interest of the company presents a conflict.  I was put in those positions (especially the ODP Liaison) because of my knowledge, skill, and experience with the PDP for the next round.  (Dot Hip Hop, LLC was in the 2012 round).  One other note, I did not update my Statement of Interest because I was waiting for the actual approval of the assignment request before disclosing.  Since Dot Hip Hop, LLC is a shell entity without any assets until ICANN approves the assignment, I didn’t disclose.  ICANN was supposed to have approved the Assignment request in October and if they had met their own deadline, I would have disclosed my position prior to getting those positions. I have committed to performing those roles with independence, openness an transparency and believe that I have done that to date.  If anyone believes otherwise, I would be happy to address, and if required, would step down.  I am not being paid by anyone in serving in these leadership roles and do them both on a volunteer basis.  I like to serve the ICANN Community and would like to continue to make it a better place.  But, it is volunteer work that I would give up if anyone honestly believes there is a conflict.  If you have any concerns, let me know. I truly am an open book.  I think at one time ICANN called me a “Bad M$#%F#$%” because I tell everyone exactly what is on my mind.  I dont believe in secrets (unless required by law or in serving as an attorney) 3. LOL on 4 months vs 4 years.   THe average turnaround time for an assignment request for the big players is less than 60 days.  

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:01:41 PM *To:* at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms   On 30/12/2021 17:46, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote:

I have no opinion on this matter but have a few newbie questions:

1.  Based on https://icannwiki.org/.hiphop <https://icannwiki.org/.hiphop> - what is the issue with .hiphop? 2.  Based on https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/jeffrey-j-neuman-appointed-to-internet-lea... <https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/jeffrey-j-neuman-appointed-to-internet-lea...>

isn't it a conflict of interest on your part? 3.  Based on https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... <https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...>

you state "following ICANN staff inaction (for its over four-month delay) of its Assignment Request for the .hiphop Registry Agreement." - based on my experience with ICANN processes, a 4 month delay is a mere second in ICANN time. I would start complaining only after 4 years.

Regards, Hank

NB The opinions or lack of opinions expressed above are solely my own

...

All,

I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Please

seehttps://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...

...

<https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... <https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-name-only>>.

...

This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately).

What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow.

———————

There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied.  In short, ICANN has taken the position

that:

...

A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis.  ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.

B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action.

————-

This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain.  Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does.

——————

If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss.  I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

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

<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

...

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

<http://atlarge.icann.org>

...

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Parminder, Since I am not one to shy away from a legitimate debate: 1. Perhaps you should read the description of the roles for both the (a) GNSO Liaison to the GAC and the (b) GNSO Liaison to the ODP for subsequent procedures. * ODP Liaison: https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31aug21-en.htm * Liaison to GAC - https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48865/request-liaison-g... and My latest report - https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48865/request-liaison-g... 1. Here were my applications to each post: * Application for GNSO Liaison to GAC (2020): https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GAC+Liaison+-+2020?preview=/144376613/146736255/GNSO%20Liaison%20to%20the%20GAC%20Application%20-%20Neum<https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GAC+Liaison+-+2020?preview=/144376613/146736255/GNSO%20Liaison%20to%20the%20GAC%20Application%20-%20Neuman.doc> * ODP (2021): https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GNSO+Council+Liaison+to+SubPro+ODP+... registry o More specifically, please take a look at my application for the ODP Liaison at page 8 (which was really page 11 of my application) under number 7. That disclosure was true then and remains true as of today. So although I did not name .hiphop specifically (as I was not allowed to), i do reference that some of my clients are gTLD Registries and Registrars, I am not representing any of them in connection with the next round. Yes, I forgot to change from SOI with the ALAC and GNSO, and apologize for that. But the decision makers who appointment me to these roles know all of the relevant facts and made their own determination about whether or not there was a conflict. So, aside from the generalized statement that you believe there is a conflict, can you please point to something specific that has been asked of me, or something that I have actually done where there was a conflict that was not disclosed. As previously states, both of these positions are voluntary for me and the if the community asks me to step down because of an actual conflict, i would do so. But honestly, I believe that that would be a bigger loss for the community given my knowledge, experience and work already performed in these subject areas. I am always open for a debate, but facts are important. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 5:57 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms On 31/12/21 4:26 am, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote: 1. I do not believe that my position with Dot Hip Hop, LLC as its Chief Legal Officer and owner of a small minority interest of the company presents a conflict. I was put in those positions (especially the ODP Liaison) because of my knowledge, skill, and experience with the PDP for the next round. (Dot Hip Hop, LLC was in the 2012 round). One other note, I did not update my Statement of Interest because I was waiting for the actual approval of the assignment request before disclosing. Since Dot Hip Hop, LLC is a shell entity without any assets until ICANN approves the assignment, I didn’t disclose. ICANN was supposed to have approved the Assignment request in October and if they had met their own deadline, I would have disclosed my position prior to getting those positions. As I said, this is really funny .. you need to disclose not after your commercial interests are served, but even as you begin to pursue those commercial interests which have a nexus with any public interest position you have or are seeking .. In the public sector, you'd have not just been dismissed, but subject to further serious inquiries and possibly penalties. 1. I have committed to performing those roles with independence, openness an transparency and believe that I have done that to date. If anyone believes otherwise, I would be happy to address, This you know is an absolutely meaningless statement in this context.. a red herring that no one is taken in by. 1. and if required, would step down. I am not being paid by anyone in serving in these leadership roles and do them both on a volunteer basis. Again, a red herring vis a vis the issue of not disclosing conflict of interest when it was due for disclosure. 1. I like to serve the ICANN Community and would like to continue to make it a better place. But, it is volunteer work that I would give up if anyone honestly believes there is a conflict. If you have any concerns, let me know. I truly am an open book. I think at one time ICANN called me a “Bad M$#%F#$%” because I tell everyone exactly what is on my mind. I dont believe in secrets (unless required by law or in serving as an attorney) It is absolutely astonishing that someone who doesnt make due disclosure of conflict of interest to public interest governance bodies directly related to commerical interests that one is actively pursuing is actually able to declare that he doesnt believe in secrets. And ah yes, you said if someone believes there is a conflict of interest -- let me be direct - yes, I believe there is a huge and unsustainable conflict in interest Let me know your response to this. Though , not to be too harsh on you, it this airy, poorly conceived multistakeholderist governance that creates the conditions for such things, and maybe to that extent any particular individuals is less to blame. Meanwhile, I must also answer a direct question you asked this group -- Yes, I full oppose ICANN being vindictive with someone who has used its accountability mechanisms. Happy to support you on that procedural front. Best, parminder 1. LOL on 4 months vs 4 years. THe average turnaround time for an assignment request for the big players is less than 60 days. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:01:41 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms On 30/12/2021 17:46, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote: I have no opinion on this matter but have a few newbie questions: 1. Based on https://icannwiki.org/.hiphop - what is the issue with .hiphop? 2. Based on https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/jeffrey-j-neuman-appointed-to-internet-lea... isn't it a conflict of interest on your part? 3. Based on https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... you state "following ICANN staff inaction (for its over four-month delay) of its Assignment Request for the .hiphop Registry Agreement." - based on my experience with ICANN processes, a 4 month delay is a mere second in ICANN time. I would start complaining only after 4 years. Regards, Hank NB The opinions or lack of opinions expressed above are solely my own

All,

I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Please seehttps://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... <https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...>.

This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately).

What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow.

———————

There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied. In short, ICANN has taken the position that:

A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis. ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.

B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action.

————-

This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain. Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does.

——————

If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss. I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

I have real issues taking seriously people who refer to "multistakeholderism" as an "...ism" like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, Buddhism, Catholicism.... There really is not such a thing a "multistakeholderism" but perhaps multistakeholder systems of governance. Lehto's criticism assumes that there is a single type of multistakeholder model out there and there really is not. Multistakeholder basically means that a variety of multiple stakeholder sit at the decision and discussion table, so how can one criticise it as if it was some form of established "system" by the elites, the cabal, the illuminati? Whatever? Or should we get back to absolute monarchy? :-) Olivier On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

The following, in a Criticism section, was removed from the wikipedia's page on "Multistakeholder governance":

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=...

On 03/01/22 3:15 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:

https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/

(I didn't go into some potentially intriguing applications of the stakeholder model.  For instance here in the US we have some states, such as Texas, that are essentially eliminating rights of women to obtain abortions.  If we were to fully honor the stakeholder model then only real "stakeholders" in that matter are women, and thus under a true stakeholder model of governance, women ought to be the only ones who would have a voice in the decision to enact that law or not.)

Which in a very perverse way does show what BS* MSism is........ A convenient device... all stakeholders will together decide, but then we will decide who the stakeholders are -- (1) either directly -- why gov, CS, tech and business, why not the 'major groups' recognized for sustainable development (Women. Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Non-Governmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Community https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/mgos ), OECD traditionally worked with civil society, trade unions and business ... And so on , And/ or (2) indirectly -- by actively creating and sustaining conditions so that 'favored' 'stakeholders' alone can effectively be present and engage   (anyone wants proof? i can provide it) I challenge any or all purveyor(s) of MS ism (or what was it -- MS governance systems) to come and co-organise a global conference on MSism (or whatever), and we will get theorists and practitioners of participatory democracy, and anyone else you want, over there -- and we can discuss threadbare and will know 'what is what' .... Any takers? Olivier? Others? parminder

    --karl--

Without broad and meaningful enfranchisement any incarnation of multistakeholder governance lacks legitimacy.

+1. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:24 AM Barry Shein via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Now people are talking past each other.

It's not the abstract concept of multistakeholder governance which is a problem.

It is its application -- how people or groups become enfranchised to participate, possibly via representation, rather than just appear in long lists of "stakeholders".

Without broad and meaningful enfranchisement any incarnation of multistakeholder governance lacks legitimacy.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

It's a good article but one criticism is that it views the cyberworld through a multilateral filter which is changing, particularly for that cyberworld. So I'll add Ian Bremmmer's provocative article also in Foreign Affairs which argues that such models are eroding as evidenced, if nothing else, by the problems outlined in Joseph Nye's article. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-10-19/ian-bremmer-big-tec... Is 400 years of Westphalian nation-state order coming to an end? If not in letter then perhaps in practice and effectiveness? It's not only cyberspace, but also immigration, trade, communications, warfare, transportation, culture, and even public health issues which clearly do not honor political borders. Royalty and aristocracy, the first phase of modern nation-state governance, did not like or respect the rise of the non-birthright nation state ca 1789, both democratic or otherwise. But by the end of WWI, and certainly WWII, they were in severe decline nonetheless and today are mostly colorful ornaments or autocrats with fancy titles, gone in barely 100 years. Perhaps we are at the cusp of such a change again and that is precisely why internet governance is so frustrating? It's like using the norms of aristocracy to reform land ownership? On January 3, 2022 at 13:12 wolfgang@kleinwaechter.info (Wolfgang Kleinwächter) wrote:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/end-cyber-anarchy

Wolfgang

-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 07:15, Javier Rua via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Thx @OCL. I resolve to stop using the word “multistakeholderism”!

I will defend the term, and continue to use it based on my personal understanding which I believe is sensible and easily understandable. To me, multistakeholderism ("m17m"*) is a political philosophy that all parties affected by a governance process ought to have a voice in that process, distinct from democracy in that it seeks a balance between populism and technical expertise. There are multiple implementations of m17m, many here have experienced a few, I offer some examples: - ICANN's of course - American political town halls - The Netmundial conference in São Paulo - IETF, complete with humming-based decision-making - ISO and many standards-making bodies Some are better than others, and some (most?) only present a facade of broad participation layered over a real process controlled by insiders. But as an aspirational approach to governance, to me true m17m is worth pursuing. - Evan (*) - I use m17m for "multistakeholderism" much like i18n <https://lingoport.com/what-is-i18n/> is used as an abbreviation for "internationalisation", and I'm lazy when I type. The abbreviation MSM (MultiStakeholder Model) to me means something different, the specific form of m17m used by ICANN which has essentially appropriated the term.

Hi Jeff, You've asked. Nobody's shown interest. OTOH, people have been having a much better time with the tangents this topic has grown. However ... While I can't speak for any other readers here, my response to your repeated demand for attention is one of enthusiastic indifference. You don't appear to have convinced anyone that ALAC ought to fight your battles. Accountability issues have plagued ICANN for decades, yet you only come here when they impact one of your clients. IMO, if ALAC is to address accountability, it needs to be systemic and also address ICANN's massive conflict-of-interest problem. I had a lot more to say about why this request bears ignoring, but I deleted it. Just not worth the effort. - Evan On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 17:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

Ok, all this has been a great discussion on Internet Governance theory, but can we bring this back to the subject at hand with respect to accountability and what practical steps we can take to address the accountability issues.

On 04/01/22 7:19 am, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote:

With all due respect Evan, I am not sure that the comments of a few people on the list during a time period when many are on vacation demonstrates the views of the  the At-Large or the ALAC at all.  There is likely a formal process to introduce the issue (as opposed to just on a mailing list).  And I would like to use the process to raise the issue.

If, as you contend, there is little interest, then so be it.  Then it never gets addressed.  But you never know until you start the process.

And again with all due respect, one should never give up on making the organization better even if you are frustrated by our lack of success in the past.

Yes, Jeff, Evan is trying to make the organization better --- by, instead of focusing on a particular grievance (whatever its merit), being concerned over larger, structural issues, like conflict of interest -- in which issue btw you seem to have little interest, and you present banal arguments for, like  I work in these ICANN positions voluntarily without any personal gain (when whether this is true or the opposite is true is precisely under the scanner) As for your response to my email expressing non confidence in your continuing with your ICANN positions owing to clear conflict of interest, i havent responded bec a response will require considerable time to dig into the documents you shared, and others,  and present a fool-proof case. I think it is the job of others here, the regular 'community' to sift and see through your conflict of interest statements, that are  prima facie so inappropriate, That is why public CoI statements are made, for the public, esp the closely involved community to inspect it, and if needed comment on it . But if people in these communities are more interested in mutual back-patting, and taking precaution that when the time comes it is not they who are 'exposed', then good luck to all. The organization cannot become better -- it is doomed ... parminder

 Giving up just doesn’t seem like the right option.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Sent:* Monday, January 3, 2022 6:42:02 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Not my circus, not my monkeys (Was Re: ACCOUNTABILITY Restart)   Hi Jeff,

You've asked. Nobody's shown interest. OTOH, people have been having a much better time with the tangents this topic has grown. However ... While I can't speak for any other readers here, my response to your repeated demand for attention is one of enthusiastic indifference.

You don't appear to have convinced anyone that ALAC ought to fight your battles. Accountability issues have plagued ICANN for decades, yet you only come here when they impact one of your clients.

IMO, if ALAC is to address accountability, it needs to be systemic and also address ICANN's massive conflict-of-interest problem. I had a lot more to say about why this request bears ignoring, but I deleted it. Just not worth the effort.

- Evan

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 17:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote:

Ok, all this has been a great discussion on Internet Governance theory, but can we bring this back to the subject at hand with respect to accountability and what practical steps we can take to address the accountability issues.  

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 01:20, Jeff Neuman via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: Honestly, I am trying to understand your position, but having difficulty

ascertaining the specifics other than your generalized statement that you believe I have a conflict of interest in serving as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC and/or the GNSO Liaison to the SubPro ODP while at the same time doing work for an entity seeking to become a contracted party . I would like to get these issues out of the way because it is not only distracting from the actual issues presented with respect to ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms, but it is a clear attack on my credibility and character.

Some people doth protest too much. Don't take it personally. ICANN is rife with conflicts of interest -- simply defined, being in any position of leadership or influence (a "position of trust", as Merriam-Webetsr puts it <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict%20of%20interest>) in a group when you or your client/employer have a financial interest in the decisions being made by that group. It is well understood that ICANN really doesn't care about CofI, so long as everyone declares and submits their SOIs etc etc. Behaviour that might get employees fired or politicians recalled in other environments is perfectly kosher here, because MSM. Those may be ICANN's rules, and I'm sure you follow them to the letter. But some of us, perhaps, have higher standards. And we're allowed to consider such personal standards when evaluating unsolicited requests for help. Here are the facts that I have provided:

All very nice. The core fact relevant to me is that you came here begging (multiple times!) for help with your pet project, from which you will benefit financially should an intervention on this specific accountability issue be resolved in your favour. If you don't see that as a conflict of interest I can't help you. Fortunately, most others reading this will get it. There are some here who will take unkindly to such a self-serving demand, given that lack of accountability was never an issue you sought to bring to ALAC's attention until it threatened your personal interest. Want a better reception? Divest your ownership stake in .hiphop, lose it as a client, then come back and let's have that talk about accountability. - Evan

+1 I guess the point of the discussion is to understand how to formally bring up the (rather massive) loophole in accountability that Jeff has identified, and perhaps fix it. In law (please note that I am not a lawyer, this is just a layman’s understanding) you are actually required to show that you have been damaged in some way before you are able to bring to the court an alleged wrong — in other words, you must be an interested party or they won’t even listen to you. It appears that in changing their procedures, ICANN is using the letter of the reconsideration procedure to undermine or erase the spirit of it. I should hope that ALAC would take something like this seriously, at least enough to debate the issue on its merits.

On Jan 4, 2022, at 1:58 PM, Barry Shein via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

I don't really have a problem with CofI per se so long as it's disclosed and perhaps doesn't fall into some categories not directly related to the issue (e.g., someone trying to discredit a candidate because they just went through an ugly romantic break-up with them.)

Who else is going to raise some of these issues but an interested party? Some altruistic by-stander?

Yes we can all imagine impartial advocates but it's often an interested party who feels they were wronged and raises an issue.

Interested parties often benefit from the righting of wrongs, that's kind of the point.

CoI is more important when the person is not just acting as an advocate but has some sort of power to decide an issue (e.g., a board member.)

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Jeff 1. If I find someone expecting a decision from ICANN regarding some gTLD issues, which has direct  pecuniary implications for him, and is simultaneously at key positions of the ICANN's policy body related to gTLDs, I FIND THIS TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Further, I find this to be exactly the kind of issues that structurally plague ICANN and its associated bodies, whereby my interest in your case is larger. 2. I said I see a conflict of interest, and you should step down. This assertion stands whether or not your disclosed any conflict of interest. The two are different things. 3. As for the conflict of interest disclosure being /prima facie/ inappropriate, your description in point 5 below reconfirms my belief/ assertion. You are saying that only when a TLD actually gets assigned in a certain manner in relation to a party that you are representing (and, I think, in which you also have direct ownership stake -- which issue btw is not coming off too clearly) does any conflict of interest arise, and NOT while the the application/ processes/ discussions/ negotiations etc are underway for such assignment. This is what I find /prima facie/ inappropriate.  Conflict of interest arises right at the start of the process -- involving a decision that could go either way -- and not only latter, at the time of assignment etc.... If I apply for a tender, or am hobnobbing with parties applying for a tender, for providing some services with a gov department, and i also hold a position in the department, the conflict of interest begins right way as one begins any involvement in the process, that could potentially serve ones private interests, and not after the awarding of a tender...  4. If saying that there is a conflict of interest, and the CoI statements look prima facie unsatisfactory or inappropriate, invites disciplinary action by the ombudsman, then that just adds one layer to what is fundamentally wrong with ICANN and its processes. So, please spare me that threat. 5. Meanwhile I have no interest in dot hip hop or you, and I did already say that individuals (meaning you in this case) are less to blame when the structural conditions are not conducive and appropriate ones. parminder On 04/01/22 11:49 am, Jeff Neuman wrote:

[STARTING A NEW THREAD TO AVOID DISTRACTION FROM ACCOUNTABILITY THREAD FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT CARE TO READ EITHER THIS THREAD OR THE OTHER]

Parminder, 

Honestly, I am trying to understand your position, but having difficulty ascertaining the specifics other than your generalized statement that you believe I have a conflict of interest in serving as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC and/or the GNSO Liaison to the SubPro ODP while at the same time doing work for an entity seeking to become a contracted party . I would like to get these issues out of the way because it is not only distracting from the actual issues presented with respect to ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms, but it is a clear attack on my credibility and character.

I expect those that attack my credibility, character and/or actions to come forward with evidence supporting their accusations.  However, rather than provide any evidence to support your serious allegation that my conflict of interest statements are “prima facie inappropriate,” you ask the community to sift through those statements (which you admit you have not read), to find the evidence for you.  This is borderline defamatory and a violation of ICANN’s Expected Rules of Behavior. I do not wish to encourage that activity moving forward, but to be fair, I do want to provide some facts to clear the air lest anyone actually believes that there is a conflict of interest with my serving as either the GNSO Liaison to the GAC or in the role of the GNSO Liaison to the SubPro ODP.

Here are the facts that I have provided:

1.  It is well known, and has been well known, that I started a business in July 2020 called JJN Solutions, LLC which represents a number of clients in a variety of different industries on legal and policy matters.  Some of the clients I have include domain name registries, registrars and registrants. I also represent some Brand Owners in the protection of Intellectual Property.  Further, in 2020 I was also appointed as a UDRP Panelist for The Forum and have presided over more than a dozen cases thus far.  This has ALWAYS been in my Statements of Interest and can be found on my website https://www.jjnsolutions.com. 2. At the time I applied for the position of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (mid 2020 I believe), I disclosed all of the above in the GNSO required application and SOI.  The Standing Selection Committee got that information and was able to weigh that against my 25+ years of service and my reputation in the community for being fair, balanced and neutral.  This has been demonstrated in my serving as in a chair or co-chair capacity on a number of Working Groups, Task Forces and other committees over the years including those where I directly worked for a domain name registry (Neustar) and then a domain name registrar (Com Laude)   3. The various leadership positions I held in the community included serving 3.5 terms on the GNSO Council on behalf of the Registries (2 years of which I was a Vice Chair of the Council on behalf of the contracted parties).  I served as a Chair of a Whois Task Force in the early 2000s, the chair of the PDP Planning Steering committee responsible for coming up with PDP 2.0, the sole registry representative on the Implementation Review Team responsible for recommending IP protections to the ICANN Board, and a chair of the Legal Assistance Group which worked with ICANN staff on the Base Registry New gTLD Agreement from 2010-2012.  Most recently, I served as a Co-chair with Cheryl Langdon-Orr of the SubPro PDP.  It was in this latter role that I became known by the GAC and was a vocal advocate for ensuring the GAC’s active participation in the SubPro PDP.  Despite working for a registrar that also provided consulting services for Brand TLDs, I was able to serve as the PDP Chair in a neutral manner - meaning that despite what my then-employer’s position was on a particular issue, it was my job to not advocate for that position and to ensure that the will of the Working Group was implemented. 4. It was also through this work that both Cheryl and I became ideal candidates to serve as the GNSO Liaison to the ODP.  We both knew the work of the PDP Working Group backwards and forwards and we could help answer questions by the GNSO and/or by ICANN about the policies.  During the selection process I again disclosed that my consulting business supported a number of clients, some of which included registries and registrars.  However, I also committed to serve in this role in a neutral manner and not on behalf of any one of my client’s.  I further disclosed that I was not being paid by any client for any work in connection with any future round of new gTLDs.  That was true then and remains true today.  I believe I have served in these roles in such a manner. 5. What I did not disclose until recently was the name of one of the client’s that I am working for; namely Dot Hip Hop, LLC.  This was due to the fact that Dot Hip Hop, LLC is not yet a contracted party.  Dot Hip Hop, LLC is trying to get ICANN consent on an assignment for the .hiphop TLD from UniRegistry Corp.  I knew that once ICANN approve DHH as a contracted party, it would be at that point that I needed to name the specific client because of the fact that have a small de minimus ownership stake in the company.  [NOTE - the SOI only requires that you disclose whether you work for a particular contracted party and does not require you to disclose that you do work for an entity that is trying to be a contracted party].  However, given the concern that YOU raised on this list about not having made the update, I decided I would do so (even though not required).

Bottom line:  (A) what is the conflict that you believe was not disclosed or that the Standing Selection Committee did not know at the time they selected me for the position? (B). What I activities in serving as these liaisons can you point to that were in contrast to serving in an independent neutral capacity?

If you cannot provide any back-up to these allegations and attacks, I ask nicely that you refrain from continued violations of ICANN’s Expected Rules of Behavior. I have not included the Ombudsman on this thread because I am optimistic that we can turn these discussions into productive ones on Accountability.

Sincerely.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, January 3, 2022 9:23 PM *To:* at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] Not my circus, not my monkeys (Was Re: ACCOUNTABILITY Restart)  

On 04/01/22 7:19 am, Jeff Neuman via At-Large wrote:

...

With all due respect Evan, I am not sure that the comments of a few people on the list during a time period when many are on vacation demonstrates the views of the  the At-Large or the ALAC at all.  There is likely a formal process to introduce the issue (as opposed to just on a mailing list).  And I would like to use the process to raise the issue.

If, as you contend, there is little interest, then so be it.  Then it never gets addressed.  But you never know until you start the process.

And again with all due respect, one should never give up on making the organization better even if you are frustrated by our lack of success in the past.

Yes, Jeff, Evan is trying to make the organization better --- by, instead of focusing on a particular grievance (whatever its merit), being concerned over larger, structural issues, like conflict of interest -- in which issue btw you seem to have little interest, and you present banal arguments for, like  I work in these ICANN positions voluntarily without any personal gain (when whether this is true or the opposite is true is precisely under the scanner)

As for your response to my email expressing non confidence in your continuing with your ICANN positions owing to clear conflict of interest, i havent responded bec a response will require considerable time to dig into the documents you shared, and others,  and present a fool-proof case. I think it is the job of others here, the regular 'community' to sift and see through your conflict of interest statements, that are  prima facie so inappropriate, That is why public CoI statements are made, for the public, esp the closely involved community to inspect it, and if needed comment on it . But if people in these communities are more interested in mutual back-patting, and taking precaution that when the time comes it is not they who are 'exposed', then good luck to all. The organization cannot become better -- it is doomed ...

parminder

...

 Giving up just doesn’t seem like the right option.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Sent:* Monday, January 3, 2022 6:42:02 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Not my circus, not my monkeys (Was Re: ACCOUNTABILITY Restart)   Hi Jeff,

You've asked. Nobody's shown interest. OTOH, people have been having a much better time with the tangents this topic has grown. However ... While I can't speak for any other readers here, my response to your repeated demand for attention is one of enthusiastic indifference.

You don't appear to have convinced anyone that ALAC ought to fight your battles. Accountability issues have plagued ICANN for decades, yet you only come here when they impact one of your clients.

IMO, if ALAC is to address accountability, it needs to be systemic and also address ICANN's massive conflict-of-interest problem. I had a lot more to say about why this request bears ignoring, but I deleted it. Just not worth the effort.

- Evan

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 17:28, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote:

Ok, all this has been a great discussion on Internet Governance theory, but can we bring this back to the subject at hand with respect to accountability and what practical steps we can take to address the accountability issues.  

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Perhaps not useful but there are 20 ICANN board members. Not one of them agrees there is a problem as you describe and is willing to work on an agenda item? What's the actual jurisdiction here? I believe this can only be fixed by a board resolution. So is the goal to get ALAC to petition the board, or one or more of the board members, to put this on an upcoming agenda and perhaps take it to a vote? Is there a draft of a resolution which the board might pass? I suppose the answer will be those avenues have been fruitless. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Jeff: I really don't understand why a duty of the Board delegated to staff would inoculate it from the constraints in byelaw or shield it from constraining counteractions envisioned by those byelaws. The rule of agency should apply. An example from the edge of empire where the rules are largely from the same root as the governance framework that corrals the ICANN board would probably best explain my puzzle. I chair a school board. The regulations - analogous to the bye-laws - allow the delegation of duties to which the board is obligated by an affirmative resolution of the board to the administration of the school. We delegated the hiring and operational supervision of teachers to the administration. Professional misconduct is alleged by a teacher hired by the administration. We are obliged to endorse and/or direct any lawful countervailing action by the administration. But for the law and oversight education ministry, it is the Board that is accountable and is constrained to act as the regulations determine. Everybody comes to the Board, not the hirelings. It seems to me that all the ICANN Board needs to do is to acknowledge that any obligation of the Board that was delegated by an affirmative resolution is and remains an obligation of the Board and the attendant instruments are neither unmoored or marooned by delegation. Because anything otherwise would be a way of evading, indeed nullify, every duty and obligation to which it is obligated. You are alleging that it has relieved itself of responsibility - and accountability! - by hiding behind the delegation. That, if so, would be an example of the kind of behavior the Empowered Community should have a stake in correcting. I'm wondering whether you called on the GNSO and CCNSO to take this into consideration? Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Jeff Neuman via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Ok, all this has been a great discussion on Internet Governance theory, but can we bring this back to the subject at hand with respect to accountability and what practical steps we can take to address the accountability issues.

What steps do we need to do to formally introduce this issue into the At-large and get addressed by the ALAC?

________________________________________

The two issues are as follows:

1. Urgent Requests for Reconsideration and closing unintended loopholes; and 2. Extending Whistleblowing Claims to allow community members to file claims (not just employees).

- URGENT RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS:

- With respect to #1, as Reconsideration Request 21-3 has shown, although there is a process for the Urgent Consideration of Reconsideration Requests in the Bylaws, that provision, which was not changed as a result of the IANA transition, is no longer fit for purpose.

Let me explain:

A) The ICANN Bylaws allow the filing of Reconsideration Requests as a result of either board action or inaction, or for Staff action or inaction. Prior to the transition, the Bylaws states that Reconsideration requests could be filed for ICANN action or inaction. The CCWG and Accountability teams in 2014-2016 believed that “ICANN action or inaction” meant either ICANN Board or ICANN staff action or inaction.

B). However, Although most of Reconsideration Request section in the Bylaws was heavily modified during the CCWG process, the community inadvertently never amended the process for Urgent Reconsideration Requests. Not sure why that was.

C). The CCWG wanted to make sure it was clear that Reconsideration Requests in general was not just for ICANN Board action or inaction, but also for ICANN Org’s action or inaction.

D). So although Reconsideration Requests now apply to staff actions/inactions, the Urgent Requests section (because the wording was not changed - or because ICANN staff deliberately did not want urgent requests to apply to it), Urgent Reconsideration requests now has been interpreted to apply only to Board Action or Inaction. I do NOT believe this was intended. But even if it were, it is time to change that.

WHY?

So, in order to file an Urgent Request for Reconsideration, the Bylaws state that it must be filed within 2 days after a Board Resolution.

1. Because Staff action (or inaction) is generally not in response to an ICANN Board Resolution, because there is no ICANN Board resolution, you you cannot file an urgent request. [This is why Reconsideration Request 21-3 failed to be treated as “Urgent”] 2. In addition, it is also likely that Urgent Requests for Reconsideration for Board inaction will also not succeed. Think of the most common case where the community needed the Board to pass a resolution on something, but they failed to do so. If you wanted to challenge that on an urgent basis, you could not because the Board inaction is the failure to pass a resolution. And since there was no resolution, you cannot file an urgent request.

*AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS WORSE….*.

After the transition was approved, in late 2016, the ICANN Board passed a resolution to approve a new delegation of authority policy (See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/delegation-of-authority-guidelin...). That policy allows the ICANN Board to delegate certain responsibilities that it has to ICANN staff without the need for the Board to pass a resolution.

ICANN Org legitimately stated this was needed especially where now you have 1200+ TLDs, Registry Services requests, amendments, etc. If every modification required a Board Resolution this would be too much of a burden for the ICANN Board.

But under the law of unintended consequences, any decision the ICANN Board delegates to the ICANN staff may now never be the subject of an Urgent Request for Reconsideration. What if, for example, the ICANN Board states that once it passes the new gTLD Program for subsequent rounds, ICANN staff had the sole discretion (without Board approval) to implement every aspect of the program including setting the fees, and resolving any and all remaining items. And lets say ICANN staff (without a Board Resolution) states a few days before opening the window, that no entity may apply for a gTLD if it already has 10,000 names under management combined with respect to any TLDs for which it is a registry operator, back-end registry operator or DNS provider.

If this doers not require a Board Resolution, you cannot oppose this new policy via an Urgent Reconsideration Request because there was no resolution.

Between the inability to challenge staff action or inaction urgently, or even Board inaction urgently, combined with the ability of the Board to delegate important items to staff without a resolution, the Urgent Reconsideration Request has been gutted.

- *Whisteblowing and Retaliation.* My article in CircleID ( https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam... ) goes into some more detail on this, but in 2016 ICANN hired an outside firm to review its Whisteblower policies. That firm made a recommendation to ICANN that it consider revising its Whistleblowing policies to allow the filing of complaints by parties other than employees because they were worried about community members filing complaints against ICANN and having no protection from retaliation. This would of course disincentive anyone from raising issues if they saw that ICANN were violating its bylaws.

ICANN responded to that report by stating that the community would consider it as part of Work Stream 2….but somehow that never happened.

And now we have an example of a party filing a complaint against ICANN and being retaliated against for having done so. The community needs to take this issue up as was recommended by the outside group to reviewed ICANN’s Whistleblower policies

These are what need to be addressed.

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

------------------------------ *From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, January 3, 2022 11:08:25 AM *To:* Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 07:15, Javier Rua via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Thx @OCL. I resolve to stop using the word “multistakeholderism”!

I will defend the term, and continue to use it based on my personal understanding which I believe is sensible and easily understandable.

To me, multistakeholderism ("m17m"*) is a political philosophy that all parties affected by a governance process ought to have a voice in that process, distinct from democracy in that it seeks a balance between populism and technical expertise.

There are multiple implementations of m17m, many here have experienced a few, I offer some examples:

- ICANN's of course - American political town halls - The Netmundial conference in São Paulo - IETF, complete with humming-based decision-making - ISO and many standards-making bodies

Some are better than others, and some (most?) only present a facade of broad participation layered over a real process controlled by insiders. But as an aspirational approach to governance, to me true m17m is worth pursuing.

- Evan

(*) - I use m17m for "multistakeholderism" much like i18n <https://lingoport.com/what-is-i18n/> is used as an abbreviation for "internationalisation", and I'm lazy when I type. The abbreviation MSM (MultiStakeholder Model) to me means something different, the specific form of m17m used by ICANN which has essentially appropriated the term. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Carlton, I totally agree with you that for ICANN Accountability purposes the Delegation of Authority Policy should say that any responsibility/obligation of the ICANN Board that is delegated to staff or to a third party shall remain an obligation/responsibility of the Board despite such delegation. But that is not what the policy states. Nor is that what the Bylaws would allow. Section 4.2(s) of the bylaws state: “If the Requestor believes that the Board action or inaction for which a Reconsideration Request is submitted is so urgent that the timing requirements of the process set forth in this Section 4.2 are too long, the Requestor may apply to the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee for urgent consideration. Any request for urgent consideration must be made within two business days (as calculated by local time at the location of ICANN's principal office) of the posting of the resolution at issue. A request for urgent consideration must include a discussion of why the matter is urgent for reconsideration and must demonstrate a likelihood of success with the Reconsideration Request.” As seen in the BAMC Response to Reconsideration Request 21-3<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop...> – ICANN has only adopted the plain meaning of Section 4.2(s) and is not willing to entertain new arguments about what should be considered. It states: “In any event, an urgent request for reconsideration, which is subject to speedy resolution under Section 4.2(t) of the Bylaws, is not the appropriate vehicle to advance the novel argument that Section 4.2(s) of the Bylaws should be read more expansively than what—as Requestor acknowledges—its plain language allows.” Therefore, even though I agree that Board actions that are delegated to the staff should be covered just as Board Actions or Inactions are, but ICANN will not interpret the Bylaws in this manner without making the changes. So, I think we need to: a) Change the Delegation Policy to include this concept of the Board being ultimately responsible for the activities it delegates staff for purposes of the Accountability Mechanisms; and b) We then need to define the timing of the filing of an Urgent Request. It cannot continue to be a requirement that an action be filed within two days of a board resolution. Otherwise, ICANN will continue to interpret this provision literally and will REJECT all claims for Urgent Reconsideration Requests if (a) there is no Board Resolution (which makes it hard to challenge INACTION); and/or (b) it involves only staff action (even where such staff action was delegated by the Board). ICANN has now made it clear that a literal meaning of the words in the Bylaws controls. Thanks again for discussing the substance. [cid:image001.png@01D80163.7020D6A0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:40 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>; Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>; Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ACCOUNTABILITY Restart - Was Re: ICANN Accountability Mechanisms Jeff: I really don't understand why a duty of the Board delegated to staff would inoculate it from the constraints in byelaw or shield it from constraining counteractions envisioned by those byelaws. The rule of agency should apply. An example from the edge of empire where the rules are largely from the same root as the governance framework that corrals the ICANN board would probably best explain my puzzle. I chair a school board. The regulations - analogous to the bye-laws - allow the delegation of duties to which the board is obligated by an affirmative resolution of the board to the administration of the school. We delegated the hiring and operational supervision of teachers to the administration. Professional misconduct is alleged by a teacher hired by the administration. We are obliged to endorse and/or direct any lawful countervailing action by the administration. But for the law and oversight education ministry, it is the Board that is accountable and is constrained to act as the regulations determine. Everybody comes to the Board, not the hirelings. It seems to me that all the ICANN Board needs to do is to acknowledge that any obligation of the Board that was delegated by an affirmative resolution is and remains an obligation of the Board and the attendant instruments are neither unmoored or marooned by delegation. Because anything otherwise would be a way of evading, indeed nullify, every duty and obligation to which it is obligated. You are alleging that it has relieved itself of responsibility - and accountability! - by hiding behind the delegation. That, if so, would be an example of the kind of behavior the Empowered Community should have a stake in correcting. I'm wondering whether you called on the GNSO and CCNSO to take this into consideration? Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Ok, all this has been a great discussion on Internet Governance theory, but can we bring this back to the subject at hand with respect to accountability and what practical steps we can take to address the accountability issues. What steps do we need to do to formally introduce this issue into the At-large and get addressed by the ALAC? ________________________________________ The two issues are as follows: 1. Urgent Requests for Reconsideration and closing unintended loopholes; and 2. Extending Whistleblowing Claims to allow community members to file claims (not just employees). * URGENT RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS: * With respect to #1, as Reconsideration Request 21-3 has shown, although there is a process for the Urgent Consideration of Reconsideration Requests in the Bylaws, that provision, which was not changed as a result of the IANA transition, is no longer fit for purpose. Let me explain: A) The ICANN Bylaws allow the filing of Reconsideration Requests as a result of either board action or inaction, or for Staff action or inaction. Prior to the transition, the Bylaws states that Reconsideration requests could be filed for ICANN action or inaction. The CCWG and Accountability teams in 2014-2016 believed that “ICANN action or inaction” meant either ICANN Board or ICANN staff action or inaction. B). However, Although most of Reconsideration Request section in the Bylaws was heavily modified during the CCWG process, the community inadvertently never amended the process for Urgent Reconsideration Requests. Not sure why that was. C). The CCWG wanted to make sure it was clear that Reconsideration Requests in general was not just for ICANN Board action or inaction, but also for ICANN Org’s action or inaction. D). So although Reconsideration Requests now apply to staff actions/inactions, the Urgent Requests section (because the wording was not changed - or because ICANN staff deliberately did not want urgent requests to apply to it), Urgent Reconsideration requests now has been interpreted to apply only to Board Action or Inaction. I do NOT believe this was intended. But even if it were, it is time to change that. WHY? So, in order to file an Urgent Request for Reconsideration, the Bylaws state that it must be filed within 2 days after a Board Resolution. 1. Because Staff action (or inaction) is generally not in response to an ICANN Board Resolution, because there is no ICANN Board resolution, you you cannot file an urgent request. [This is why Reconsideration Request 21-3 failed to be treated as “Urgent”] 2. In addition, it is also likely that Urgent Requests for Reconsideration for Board inaction will also not succeed. Think of the most common case where the community needed the Board to pass a resolution on something, but they failed to do so. If you wanted to challenge that on an urgent basis, you could not because the Board inaction is the failure to pass a resolution. And since there was no resolution, you cannot file an urgent request. AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS WORSE….. After the transition was approved, in late 2016, the ICANN Board passed a resolution to approve a new delegation of authority policy (See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/delegation-of-authority-guidelin...). That policy allows the ICANN Board to delegate certain responsibilities that it has to ICANN staff without the need for the Board to pass a resolution. ICANN Org legitimately stated this was needed especially where now you have 1200+ TLDs, Registry Services requests, amendments, etc. If every modification required a Board Resolution this would be too much of a burden for the ICANN Board. But under the law of unintended consequences, any decision the ICANN Board delegates to the ICANN staff may now never be the subject of an Urgent Request for Reconsideration. What if, for example, the ICANN Board states that once it passes the new gTLD Program for subsequent rounds, ICANN staff had the sole discretion (without Board approval) to implement every aspect of the program including setting the fees, and resolving any and all remaining items. And lets say ICANN staff (without a Board Resolution) states a few days before opening the window, that no entity may apply for a gTLD if it already has 10,000 names under management combined with respect to any TLDs for which it is a registry operator, back-end registry operator or DNS provider. If this doers not require a Board Resolution, you cannot oppose this new policy via an Urgent Reconsideration Request because there was no resolution. Between the inability to challenge staff action or inaction urgently, or even Board inaction urgently, combined with the ability of the Board to delegate important items to staff without a resolution, the Urgent Reconsideration Request has been gutted. * Whisteblowing and Retaliation. My article in CircleID (https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam...) goes into some more detail on this, but in 2016 ICANN hired an outside firm to review its Whisteblower policies. That firm made a recommendation to ICANN that it consider revising its Whistleblowing policies to allow the filing of complaints by parties other than employees because they were worried about community members filing complaints against ICANN and having no protection from retaliation. This would of course disincentive anyone from raising issues if they saw that ICANN were violating its bylaws. ICANN responded to that report by stating that the community would consider it as part of Work Stream 2….but somehow that never happened. And now we have an example of a party filing a complaint against ICANN and being retaliated against for having done so. The community needs to take this issue up as was recommended by the outside group to reviewed ICANN’s Whistleblower policies These are what need to be addressed. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:08:25 AM To: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> Cc: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 07:15, Javier Rua via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Thx @OCL. I resolve to stop using the word “multistakeholderism”! I will defend the term, and continue to use it based on my personal understanding which I believe is sensible and easily understandable. To me, multistakeholderism ("m17m"*) is a political philosophy that all parties affected by a governance process ought to have a voice in that process, distinct from democracy in that it seeks a balance between populism and technical expertise. There are multiple implementations of m17m, many here have experienced a few, I offer some examples: * ICANN's of course * American political town halls * The Netmundial conference in São Paulo * IETF, complete with humming-based decision-making * ISO and many standards-making bodies Some are better than others, and some (most?) only present a facade of broad participation layered over a real process controlled by insiders. But as an aspirational approach to governance, to me true m17m is worth pursuing. - Evan (*) - I use m17m for "multistakeholderism" much like i18n<https://lingoport.com/what-is-i18n/> is used as an abbreviation for "internationalisation", and I'm lazy when I type. The abbreviation MSM (MultiStakeholder Model) to me means something different, the specific form of m17m used by ICANN which has essentially appropriated the term. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

NARALO will be holding a session on ICANN Accountability Mechanism with Jonathan Zuck and Jeff Neuman. We will be posting a flyer for the event. It will be Monday Feb 14th at @2000 UTC ZOOM REGISTRATION LINK: https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJArcuyqrDwiGtJw5LvWSjNps7t2hR1Fi03D Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 2:53 AM parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Dear Wolfgang

Thank you so much for your responses. 2022 is indeed turning out to be a 'new' year :) . Hope you will stay the course so that we hopefully can (1) try and see if some mutual agreement if not on solutions then at least on issues and 'facts' is reached, and (2) in any case, help others remember or develop very useful knowledge on these issues. Pl see inline below.

On 05/01/22 3:29 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

Hi Parminder,

here are some comments:

@ IBSA: My problem with IBSA was,

To keep things to specific and thus verifiable facts; i understand you are referring to India's CIRP (Committee on Internet-Related Policies) proposal <https://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/939/India-UN-CIRP-Proposal-at-UN...> to the UN in Oct 2011. It had a precursor in a meeting a few weeks earlier in Rio de Janeiro involving IBSA officials, which developed a short document, of a para-official status, though the meeting was recognized meanwhile in an IBSA Summit statement. I can discuss either, but I think you mean India's UN-CIRP proposal, which -- unlike the IBSA doc -- was an official proposal from India to the UN. From now, I will be specifically referring to and discussing hat. (Happy to discuss the IBSA meeting/ doc, and its history, etc, if you wish).

that the proposal aimed at the establishment of a centralized intergovernmental decision making body for all Internet related issues.

When you make such statements, you need to keep comparing UN-CIRP proposal with OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), which is the issue I deliberately introduced, precisely to prevent you/ others from getting away with vague descriptions and allegations, like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', etc.... Therefore, please be so good as to state how OECD's CDEP - -the key center of global digital policy making today -- but undemocratically controlled only by the richest countries of the world, while expressly pushing its norms, principles and legal instruments on the whole world -- IS NOT 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', 'decision-making' etc. These things you allege India's proposed UN-CIRP to be. Also do address the counter allegation that OECD-CDEP is 'undemocratic', as only involving the richest countries of the world, but pushing its norms, principles and legal instruments on the whole world. The latest one in this regard being its new legal instrument on AI governance <https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449>. It first immediately pushed it on the G 20 <https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G20-Japan-AI-Princip...> , and now wants the whole world to adopt it through its euphemistically named 'The Global Partnership on AI <https://oecd.ai/en/gpai>". To me this is what looks like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', undemocratic, neocolonial, and so on... Anyway, I await your response. Thanks.

The idea with the advisory committees for non-state actors (copied from the OECD) was a good one.

Thanks. But as far as I can see, it still made no difference at all to people/organizations like you, ISOC, developed countries, and much of the IG civil society. Even with both -- OECD's CDEP and India's proposed UN-CIRP -- having exactly the same institutional design, you still

(1) kept holding your collective nose over the UN-CIRP being 'intergovernmental', and refused to engage with it even as a proposal open to suggestions and change

(2) while at the same time kept calling OECD-CDEP as agreeably 'multistakeholder', and gladly working with it.

That was my principal point, and your response unfortunately makes NIL progress on that.

But the critical point was, that it was a "one size fits all" proposal.

Again, you need to explain your generic statements like this one... How is UN-CIRP "one size fits all" and OECD-CDEP not so. You can check CDEP's breadth of scope and work -- having worked in issues as diverse as security, labor, gender, children, data governance, AI governance, consumer protection, broadband, tax, blockchain ........ . Also see how it also works in conjunction with other OCED committees/ sections on overlapping issues, which was/ is also intended for any such UN based committee/ body. So, indeed, your "one size fits all" critique of the UN-CIRP proposal is also as bogus.

When I asked Tullika at the IGF in Nairobi whether ISBA would be responsible also for IP address management, she was very unclear in her response.

You mean not IBSA, but the proposed UN-CIRP, right.

Yes, this area needed more engagement and more clarity. But all initial proposals come with some points that others may not agree with. You let know what you agree with and what not. It is very convenient that -- because this specific thing is not clear, so I wont even engage and let know WHAT I INDEED DO AGREE WITH. That is called a convenient excuse or a ruse. Meanwhile you to engage with -- and never criticize -- OECD- CDEP. In which case, this 'small point' that the OECD is a club of rich countries trying to dominate the world -- including taking over global digital policy/ norms/ soft-law making -- does never rankle you, and you in your entire career have not mentioned one word about it.

Meanwhile, within months of making the UN-CIRP proposal, at a UNDESA consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in Geneva in May 2012, the Indian representative made a statement explaining the context of the CIRP proposal, very significantly observing that:

“...a global view in the overall interest of the global community on the issues of the public policy for Internet Governance would be the right approach” and that “India would be pragmatic and flexible in its approach”. India asked for a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to undertake this discussions to discuss “all aspects of Internet Governance that have been raised so far, without pre-judging the outcome”.

Can you think of a more open attitude? (Btw, havent heard OECD ever say, yes, I agree, OECD deciding digital policy, norms, soft-law etc for the world is a problem, and we are open to discussing it! Why dont you ever try your charms on them?)

Meanwhile, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) met the next day after 'enhanced cooperation' consultations,, where I had the honor to formally address the session along with a few other unmentionably high dignitaries. I specifically took up the matter of the confusion regarding ICANN etc oversight vis a vis India's UN-CIRP proposal (the issue that you raise here), calling these concerns as being well-placed. I proposed that the issue of -- and institutional proposals for --- general Internet related policies (OECD-CDEP style) be separated from that of ICANN oversight. This fully addressed the confusion that you refer to here. To quote <https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ecn162012_p12_EN.pdf>:

"In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as the key problem, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually satisfactory solution can be found."

After I spoke, the US CSTD rep, one Mr Andrew I remember, during the session, said that my proposal of a 'separation' of institutional approaches was a very good and constructive proposal.

So much so for your excuse that you have remained so mortally confused about that one thing of "ICANN oversight issue" in India's UN-CIRP proposal, that is has foreclosed all your engagement with it, as well as any proposal resembling it. ( (therefore) meant nothing to you and you did nothing about it.

(This meanwhile still does not explain your non engagement with IT for Change's proposals -- being made from right after WSIS. Taking up OECD-CDEP's institutional model for a UN body was first proposed by ITfC in 2010 consultations by the UN on 'enhanced cooperation'. This indeed is where India picked its UN-CIRP model from. But, IT for Change has been doubtful from the very start -- beginning from this 2010 contribution -- about the wisdom of mixing the function of developing general Internet-related policies and the function of oversight over "ICANN plus". Our further submissions, including to the 'Net-Mundial process' and WGEC, clearly testify to this.)

Coming now to this discussion shifting to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which was set up on India's insistence with more or less the sole purpose of resolving the above and related stalemates. (In the interest of brevity, I will skip how you and others tried to subvert the formation of this WG, by now, somewhat spectacularly, insisting that the IGF itself was 'enhanced cooperation', after having for a few years post-WSIS insisted that IGF and enhanced cooperation (EC) were indeed so dramatically different and separate that EC could not even be discussed at the IGF!!! This is in the records of MAG meetings and MAG consultations. So much so that I was refused to have a workshop on EC in the IGF program, and had to get the Brazilian government to strongly intervene to get it accepted. But, ok, lets come back to the original track.)

Wolfgang, we were both members of the WGEC, and therefore our responsibilities for what happened in the WGEC (and what did not) are direct - at least per what we ourselves did and, equally important, did not do... Fortunately, not just the documents but complete transcripts of the meetings of WGEC are available on the CSTD website.

In the entire 4 years of WGEC existence and its numerous meetings, I did not see you once raise 'this confusion' that seemed to have stalled your entire engagement with the most important IG institutional proposal to come from the South or developing countries -- I mean the UN-CIRP and the similar. Any reason for that? But matter not, I (and others) still gave specific proposals, in written as well as oral submissions, which *inter alia* did specifically address 'your confusion area', including proposing separate institutional mechanisms for 'general Internet related public policies' and 'the ICANN oversight issue'. I kept on saying over and over, in every single meeting, that this proposed 'general internet related public polices' based CIRP like body at the UN is now definitely the EXACT REPLICA of OECD-CDEP, now that the 'ICANN oversight' confusion was also clearly removed. YOU DID NOT RESPOND ONCE. So, it is a bit amusing to hear you now, after a decade of the original proposal, justify your non-engagement with UN-CIRP proposal in this manner, blaming it on 'a particular confusion', which has publicly -- including at official forums -- been cleared many times over.

Sorry, Wolfgang, your excuse or justification does not hold ground. Provable facts speak otherwise - loud and clear.

To substantiate,you may refer here <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC2016-2018_m4_CompRecom...> and here <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses....> the proposals made by various parties to the the two editions of UN-WGEC. These amply evidence that complete institutional proposals (including EXACT OECD-CDEP kind) were repeatedly made, and any confusion vis a vis them as related to the 'ICANN oversight issue' repeatedly cleared. To these you made no responses, and showed ero engagement, over the 4 years of the existence of the WGEC, or afterwords .. Neither did you forward any proposal from your side.

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

For the sake of completeness, before closing let me explain why India's CIRP proposal indeed had that provision about "Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting".

Do remember that as per WSIS's Tunis Agenda ' para 70, all governments should be able to on an equal footing engage in the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". This is clearly not the case at present. This above section in India's UN-CIRP proposal was proposed to give effect to this mandate from the WSIS.

You or others who do not agree to the manner that India's UN-CIRP proposal tried to give effect to that -- TA p 70 - mandate from WSIS are welcome to provide counter-proposals. As IT for Change did. But you havent ever. You must understand that the Government of India could not ordinarily have made an institutional proposal to the UN, as arising from the Tunis Agenda mandate, which left out this crucial part spoken of in TA p 70. Meanwhile, India did make official statement immediately afterwards that they were open to hear other views -- but such views never came.....

The context of India's proposal is important. It is not that ICANN-plus at that time (or even now) existed free from government oversight. ICANN was at this time under express US gov oversight, and, well, it still is under US oversight. Everyone knows why ICANN went back on the issue of .org sale -- bec governments in the US insisted that it did. That is what gets called as OVERSIGHT. But I know such minor things entirely bypass your critical thinking and scrutiny. It was entirely fair for those who developed India's CIRP proposal to seek transfer of ICANN-plus's oversight from just the US government -- as at present -- to a globally more democratic system. You have alternative to how CIRP tried it? Please present them. I havent heard ever of them if they indeed exit. IT for Change DID present constructive alternatives to how CIRP approached the issue, which too you never engaged with.

In fact-- while at the subject let me also bring this up -- during the IANA transition process -- when I along with the Brazilian gov kept asking for jurisdictional immunity for ICANN under US's own existing law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act>, you never supported or even responded to our proposal - -even when you were very actively engaged with the transition process.. Under an existing US law, US does provide such jurisdictional immunity, including to non-UN global entities... The possible 'solution' of such 'jurisdictional immunity' under existing US law is also contained in an earlier ICANN document. You never even engaged with this proposal, and gave no reasons for your non-engagement either.

Perhaps you should explain why you, and others, did not support even such a mild effort to address developing country concerns about US's unilateral oversight of ICANN? This despite the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus having adopted the position in 2005 that "ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation". Host country agreements do almost always include jurisdictional immunity. When the crunch came -- and the issue was officially up for 'community's decision' -- you all went against the common adopted position of the CS-IGC... Such biased actions and non-actions give no confidence to developing country actors - governments and civil society organizations.

Regards, Parminder

PS: My response is already long. I will therefore come back separately on other issues raised in your email . This includes your very unfortunate descending to some 'dirty tricks'. But be assured that I will respond to every single part and thing.. Right now I do not want to take the bait and provide you the distraction you seem to be looking for.

parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> <parminder@itforchange.net> hat am 03.01.2022 15:55 geschrieben:

Dear Wolfgang

The problem is that you provide sophisticated theories, which is normally a good thing, but you never respond to questions in the spirit of good theorists as well as that of deliberative democracy. This makes me wonder what to make of your theories, especially when the questions I ask are not abstract but directly related to your own actions and words at different times -- which seem to very conveniently be different for very similar situations, which is never good for a theorist.

But I will persist, and ask again. Hope you answer them this time. Please see below: On 03/01/22 4:39 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

1+ to Olivier:

There is no "ism". It is better to use language like "the multistakeholder approach". The original concept came from the WSIS 1 (2003) when two conflicting proposals for a "one stakeholder approach" (leadership) for the governing of the Internet were on the table:

I understand that in your country, Germany, it is the government which sets and enforces all Internet/ digital policies, as it does in all other areas (in howsoever a consultative manner, which btw is the realm of participatory democracy and not MSism which is a direct post-democratic political capture). have you called out this problematic "one stakeholder approach" in your country? If not, why so... Do you believe that Germany should make its Internet/ digital policies with equal right to corporations as with the government?

Governments (China) vs. Private Sector (US). The wisdom of the WGIG was to recognize that the Internet does not need a "leader", but the involvement of *all *related stakeholders (in their respective roles).

Is Germany's Internet governance 'the respective roles' thing or "one stakeholder approach"? I will appreciate clear and direct responses . Because one wants to really know what things conveniently elastic concepts are meant to mean. So, please, as a good theorist, when you use concepts, define them, and if possible also illustrate, including with counter examples.

Meanwhile, I asked in another email, why, for instance, trade unions (or women and farmers) are not stakeholders, as in UN systems and in OECD (trade unions), and we have this industry-serving foursome formula as the mantra in IG? Who decides who the relevant stakeholders are?

The working definition, which made its way "1to1" into the Tunis Agenda, included also the concept of "sharing". The working definition was presented as an invitation for further conceptual clarification.

Yes, are you happy to do a meeting on such conceptual clarification -- I have been asking for it for at least 15 years.. Including above, as you will see, which I am almost sure -- from long experience -- that you will not engage with.

Unfortunately, after 2005 the WGIG concept was pulled into a senseless power struggle between "isms": Multilateralism vs. Multistakeholderism. This conflict was nonsense from the very first day.

Ah! Nonsense! Right .. the MSists made it nonsense.. Developing countries and groups like ours supported IGF formation at WSIS when developed countries, and ISOC and ICANN were firmly opposed to it. Others including in civil society were happy with a capacity building role for IGF, which we firmly opposed and sought a policy dialogue role.

Including at the UN WG on IGF Improvements, developing countries and organizations like ours gave detailed proposals to further genuine multistakeholder participation (with very good safeguards too) -- which you as a member of the group joined developed countries, tech community and business to firmly oppose, whereby those could not be adopted. Find enclosed the 'India proposal' in this regard, which I helped develop. May I question why you did you not support this effort to strengthen multistakeholder systems, and rejected it out of hand, did not even negotiate with it. We had, through some hard work, got almost all developing countries behind this proposal.

Now, I come to how these ideas, terms, etc, become nonsensical, and your contribution to it.

First: I have often asked you this, and wont stop asking. How OECD's Committee for Digital Economy Policies -- which is where globally the most digital policy development work currently takes place (and wonder of wonders, none talks about -- they recently adopted a legal instrument on AI governance, and are now forcing it on the whole world) -- with its intergov decision making with stakeholder advisory committees, and similar digital policy making systems of CoE, are considered as multistakeholder? IISOC has officially called them that, and you yourself participate in them -----

But when IBSA or India proposes the EXACT same governance model -- deliberately a cut-paste from OECD, the whole IG world erupts in disgust over 'imposition' of multilateral-ism and governmental control over the Internet, including yourself. In fact when the same model was proposed by developing countries -- i have that proposal too -- at the WG for enhanced cooperation too, you rejected it in my presence as anti-multistakeholderist -- joining with developing countries, business and ISOC in doing so?

It is all this that made these ideas and concepts nonsensical -- the way they were blatantly used and abused to further the incumbent power of US and its allies, and their corporations.... You are right there, in bearing the responsibility, for such nonsensical-isation of these otherwise worthy ideas and concepts .. Which now you rue ..

And more recently, bringing back precisely the kind of things you rejected at the IGF improvement WG through the backdoor of MAG based IGF 'evolution' and now the digital cooperation thing (led by that great monopolist Bill Gates, sorry his then wife, and Jack Ma, who now is almost in hiding from regulatory crackdown), but shorn of the safeguards we have kept in our IGF WG proposal to contain abuse by corporatist power ... (happy to discuss the differences)

But maybe you have responses, and can show that all what I say simply did not happen... eager to hear that..

With best personal wises, and a very happy new year, parminder

The Multilateral (Intergovernmental) treaty system will not disappear or can not be substituted by multistakeholder arrangements, but it is embedded in a "multistakeholder environment". If governments ignore, what civil society, business or the technical community has to say, it won´t work. On the other hand: Non-State actors can not substitute governments. But there are possibilities for additional multistakeholder arrangements which are based on voluntary commitments (RFCs are a good example). The multistakeholder approach is a process, a "round table" discussion where wisdom emerges from an open and inclusive debate bottom up. It is an exersize of free and frank discussion where listening is sometimes more important than shouting. This goes far beyond "formal consultations" (as parliamentary hearings).

This is indeed a new (political) culture which needs further conceptual and procedural clarifications. The NetMundial Statement (2014) delivered some criteria which allow a certain "measurement" for the quality of a multistakeholder process. There is no "one size fits all" multistakeholder model. How the relationship among the stakeholders in policy development and decision making is proceduraly organized, depends to a high degree from the nature of the subject. Cybersecurity needs a different governance model than digital trade or the protection of individual human rights as freedom of expression or privacy in the digital age.The IGF+ process (including the drafting of the proposed Global Digital Compact) offers an opportunity, to take the next conceptual steps. Openess, transparency, bottom up, inclusion, human rights based are good guidelines, but needs further clarification. And it needs procedures, how to move from A to B. Ther procedure which was developed within ICANN how the ICANN Board should deal with GAC advice is a good source of inspiration, how stakeholders can enhance their communication, coordination and collaboration within a multistakeholder process to produce tangible results. It is "stumbing forward" into unchartered territory.

The WGIG definition differentiated also between the *development *and the *use *of the Internet, that is the Governance *of *the Internet and Governance *on* the Internet. Governance of the Internet is described today as "Technical Internet Governance" (TIC), that is the management of a "neutral technical ressource" in the public interest of the global community. Such ressources are like "air". There is no American or Chinese air, there is clean air or polluted air. This risk in today´s geo-strategic armtwisting is, that those ressources are pulled into political conflicts with the risk to "pollute the air" (see the Russian proposal in the ITU-CWG-Internet).

Wolfgang

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 03.01.2022 03:16 geschrieben:

I have real issues taking seriously people who refer to "multistakeholderism" as an "...ism" like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, Buddhism, Catholicism.... There really is not such a thing a "multistakeholderism" but perhaps multistakeholder systems of governance. Lehto's criticism assumes that there is a single type of multistakeholder model out there and there really is not. Multistakeholder basically means that a variety of multiple stakeholder sit at the decision and discussion table, so how can one criticise it as if it was some form of established "system" by the elites, the cabal, the illuminati? Whatever? Or should we get back to absolute monarchy? :-)

Olivier

On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

The following, in a Criticism section, was removed from the wikipedia's page on "Multistakeholder governance":

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=...

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

This very interesting discussion has forced me to [re]read - and more closely! - some of the documents that got mentioned here and which I read before now. If anything, it reinforces what I learned so many years ago as a lad from the book analysis of George Orwel's classic, 1984. Language and its meaning is often alchemical transmutation. Context is and remains a pesky equal opportunity betrayer. Thank you Parminder. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:53 AM parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Dear Wolfgang

Thank you so much for your responses. 2022 is indeed turning out to be a 'new' year :) . Hope you will stay the course so that we hopefully can (1) try and see if some mutual agreement if not on solutions then at least on issues and 'facts' is reached, and (2) in any case, help others remember or develop very useful knowledge on these issues. Pl see inline below.

On 05/01/22 3:29 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

Hi Parminder,

here are some comments:

@ IBSA: My problem with IBSA was,

To keep things to specific and thus verifiable facts; i understand you are referring to India's CIRP (Committee on Internet-Related Policies) proposal <https://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/939/India-UN-CIRP-Proposal-at-UN...> to the UN in Oct 2011. It had a precursor in a meeting a few weeks earlier in Rio de Janeiro involving IBSA officials, which developed a short document, of a para-official status, though the meeting was recognized meanwhile in an IBSA Summit statement. I can discuss either, but I think you mean India's UN-CIRP proposal, which -- unlike the IBSA doc -- was an official proposal from India to the UN. From now, I will be specifically referring to and discussing hat. (Happy to discuss the IBSA meeting/ doc, and its history, etc, if you wish).

that the proposal aimed at the establishment of a centralized intergovernmental decision making body for all Internet related issues.

When you make such statements, you need to keep comparing UN-CIRP proposal with OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), which is the issue I deliberately introduced, precisely to prevent you/ others from getting away with vague descriptions and allegations, like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', etc.... Therefore, please be so good as to state how OECD's CDEP - -the key center of global digital policy making today -- but undemocratically controlled only by the richest countries of the world, while expressly pushing its norms, principles and legal instruments on the whole world -- IS NOT 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', 'decision-making' etc. These things you allege India's proposed UN-CIRP to be. Also do address the counter allegation that OECD-CDEP is 'undemocratic', as only involving the richest countries of the world, but pushing its norms, principles and legal instruments on the whole world. The latest one in this regard being its new legal instrument on AI governance <https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449>. It first immediately pushed it on the G 20 <https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G20-Japan-AI-Princip...> , and now wants the whole world to adopt it through its euphemistically named 'The Global Partnership on AI <https://oecd.ai/en/gpai>". To me this is what looks like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', undemocratic, neocolonial, and so on... Anyway, I await your response. Thanks.

The idea with the advisory committees for non-state actors (copied from the OECD) was a good one.

Thanks. But as far as I can see, it still made no difference at all to people/organizations like you, ISOC, developed countries, and much of the IG civil society. Even with both -- OECD's CDEP and India's proposed UN-CIRP -- having exactly the same institutional design, you still

(1) kept holding your collective nose over the UN-CIRP being 'intergovernmental', and refused to engage with it even as a proposal open to suggestions and change

(2) while at the same time kept calling OECD-CDEP as agreeably 'multistakeholder', and gladly working with it.

That was my principal point, and your response unfortunately makes NIL progress on that.

But the critical point was, that it was a "one size fits all" proposal.

Again, you need to explain your generic statements like this one... How is UN-CIRP "one size fits all" and OECD-CDEP not so. You can check CDEP's breadth of scope and work -- having worked in issues as diverse as security, labor, gender, children, data governance, AI governance, consumer protection, broadband, tax, blockchain ........ . Also see how it also works in conjunction with other OCED committees/ sections on overlapping issues, which was/ is also intended for any such UN based committee/ body. So, indeed, your "one size fits all" critique of the UN-CIRP proposal is also as bogus.

When I asked Tullika at the IGF in Nairobi whether ISBA would be responsible also for IP address management, she was very unclear in her response.

You mean not IBSA, but the proposed UN-CIRP, right.

Yes, this area needed more engagement and more clarity. But all initial proposals come with some points that others may not agree with. You let know what you agree with and what not. It is very convenient that -- because this specific thing is not clear, so I wont even engage and let know WHAT I INDEED DO AGREE WITH. That is called a convenient excuse or a ruse. Meanwhile you to engage with -- and never criticize -- OECD- CDEP. In which case, this 'small point' that the OECD is a club of rich countries trying to dominate the world -- including taking over global digital policy/ norms/ soft-law making -- does never rankle you, and you in your entire career have not mentioned one word about it.

Meanwhile, within months of making the UN-CIRP proposal, at a UNDESA consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in Geneva in May 2012, the Indian representative made a statement explaining the context of the CIRP proposal, very significantly observing that:

“...a global view in the overall interest of the global community on the issues of the public policy for Internet Governance would be the right approach” and that “India would be pragmatic and flexible in its approach”. India asked for a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to undertake this discussions to discuss “all aspects of Internet Governance that have been raised so far, without pre-judging the outcome”.

Can you think of a more open attitude? (Btw, havent heard OECD ever say, yes, I agree, OECD deciding digital policy, norms, soft-law etc for the world is a problem, and we are open to discussing it! Why dont you ever try your charms on them?)

Meanwhile, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) met the next day after 'enhanced cooperation' consultations,, where I had the honor to formally address the session along with a few other unmentionably high dignitaries. I specifically took up the matter of the confusion regarding ICANN etc oversight vis a vis India's UN-CIRP proposal (the issue that you raise here), calling these concerns as being well-placed. I proposed that the issue of -- and institutional proposals for --- general Internet related policies (OECD-CDEP style) be separated from that of ICANN oversight. This fully addressed the confusion that you refer to here. To quote <https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ecn162012_p12_EN.pdf>:

"In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as the key problem, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually satisfactory solution can be found."

After I spoke, the US CSTD rep, one Mr Andrew I remember, during the session, said that my proposal of a 'separation' of institutional approaches was a very good and constructive proposal.

So much so for your excuse that you have remained so mortally confused about that one thing of "ICANN oversight issue" in India's UN-CIRP proposal, that is has foreclosed all your engagement with it, as well as any proposal resembling it. ( (therefore) meant nothing to you and you did nothing about it.

(This meanwhile still does not explain your non engagement with IT for Change's proposals -- being made from right after WSIS. Taking up OECD-CDEP's institutional model for a UN body was first proposed by ITfC in 2010 consultations by the UN on 'enhanced cooperation'. This indeed is where India picked its UN-CIRP model from. But, IT for Change has been doubtful from the very start -- beginning from this 2010 contribution -- about the wisdom of mixing the function of developing general Internet-related policies and the function of oversight over "ICANN plus". Our further submissions, including to the 'Net-Mundial process' and WGEC, clearly testify to this.)

Coming now to this discussion shifting to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which was set up on India's insistence with more or less the sole purpose of resolving the above and related stalemates. (In the interest of brevity, I will skip how you and others tried to subvert the formation of this WG, by now, somewhat spectacularly, insisting that the IGF itself was 'enhanced cooperation', after having for a few years post-WSIS insisted that IGF and enhanced cooperation (EC) were indeed so dramatically different and separate that EC could not even be discussed at the IGF!!! This is in the records of MAG meetings and MAG consultations. So much so that I was refused to have a workshop on EC in the IGF program, and had to get the Brazilian government to strongly intervene to get it accepted. But, ok, lets come back to the original track.)

Wolfgang, we were both members of the WGEC, and therefore our responsibilities for what happened in the WGEC (and what did not) are direct - at least per what we ourselves did and, equally important, did not do... Fortunately, not just the documents but complete transcripts of the meetings of WGEC are available on the CSTD website.

In the entire 4 years of WGEC existence and its numerous meetings, I did not see you once raise 'this confusion' that seemed to have stalled your entire engagement with the most important IG institutional proposal to come from the South or developing countries -- I mean the UN-CIRP and the similar. Any reason for that? But matter not, I (and others) still gave specific proposals, in written as well as oral submissions, which *inter alia* did specifically address 'your confusion area', including proposing separate institutional mechanisms for 'general Internet related public policies' and 'the ICANN oversight issue'. I kept on saying over and over, in every single meeting, that this proposed 'general internet related public polices' based CIRP like body at the UN is now definitely the EXACT REPLICA of OECD-CDEP, now that the 'ICANN oversight' confusion was also clearly removed. YOU DID NOT RESPOND ONCE. So, it is a bit amusing to hear you now, after a decade of the original proposal, justify your non-engagement with UN-CIRP proposal in this manner, blaming it on 'a particular confusion', which has publicly -- including at official forums -- been cleared many times over.

Sorry, Wolfgang, your excuse or justification does not hold ground. Provable facts speak otherwise - loud and clear.

To substantiate,you may refer here <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC2016-2018_m4_CompRecom...> and here <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses....> the proposals made by various parties to the the two editions of UN-WGEC. These amply evidence that complete institutional proposals (including EXACT OECD-CDEP kind) were repeatedly made, and any confusion vis a vis them as related to the 'ICANN oversight issue' repeatedly cleared. To these you made no responses, and showed ero engagement, over the 4 years of the existence of the WGEC, or afterwords .. Neither did you forward any proposal from your side.

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

For the sake of completeness, before closing let me explain why India's CIRP proposal indeed had that provision about "Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting".

Do remember that as per WSIS's Tunis Agenda ' para 70, all governments should be able to on an equal footing engage in the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". This is clearly not the case at present. This above section in India's UN-CIRP proposal was proposed to give effect to this mandate from the WSIS.

You or others who do not agree to the manner that India's UN-CIRP proposal tried to give effect to that -- TA p 70 - mandate from WSIS are welcome to provide counter-proposals. As IT for Change did. But you havent ever. You must understand that the Government of India could not ordinarily have made an institutional proposal to the UN, as arising from the Tunis Agenda mandate, which left out this crucial part spoken of in TA p 70. Meanwhile, India did make official statement immediately afterwards that they were open to hear other views -- but such views never came.....

The context of India's proposal is important. It is not that ICANN-plus at that time (or even now) existed free from government oversight. ICANN was at this time under express US gov oversight, and, well, it still is under US oversight. Everyone knows why ICANN went back on the issue of .org sale -- bec governments in the US insisted that it did. That is what gets called as OVERSIGHT. But I know such minor things entirely bypass your critical thinking and scrutiny. It was entirely fair for those who developed India's CIRP proposal to seek transfer of ICANN-plus's oversight from just the US government -- as at present -- to a globally more democratic system. You have alternative to how CIRP tried it? Please present them. I havent heard ever of them if they indeed exit. IT for Change DID present constructive alternatives to how CIRP approached the issue, which too you never engaged with.

In fact-- while at the subject let me also bring this up -- during the IANA transition process -- when I along with the Brazilian gov kept asking for jurisdictional immunity for ICANN under US's own existing law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act>, you never supported or even responded to our proposal - -even when you were very actively engaged with the transition process.. Under an existing US law, US does provide such jurisdictional immunity, including to non-UN global entities... The possible 'solution' of such 'jurisdictional immunity' under existing US law is also contained in an earlier ICANN document. You never even engaged with this proposal, and gave no reasons for your non-engagement either.

Perhaps you should explain why you, and others, did not support even such a mild effort to address developing country concerns about US's unilateral oversight of ICANN? This despite the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus having adopted the position in 2005 that "ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation". Host country agreements do almost always include jurisdictional immunity. When the crunch came -- and the issue was officially up for 'community's decision' -- you all went against the common adopted position of the CS-IGC... Such biased actions and non-actions give no confidence to developing country actors - governments and civil society organizations.

Regards, Parminder

PS: My response is already long. I will therefore come back separately on other issues raised in your email . This includes your very unfortunate descending to some 'dirty tricks'. But be assured that I will respond to every single part and thing.. Right now I do not want to take the bait and provide you the distraction you seem to be looking for.

parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> <parminder@itforchange.net> hat am 03.01.2022 15:55 geschrieben:

Dear Wolfgang

The problem is that you provide sophisticated theories, which is normally a good thing, but you never respond to questions in the spirit of good theorists as well as that of deliberative democracy. This makes me wonder what to make of your theories, especially when the questions I ask are not abstract but directly related to your own actions and words at different times -- which seem to very conveniently be different for very similar situations, which is never good for a theorist.

But I will persist, and ask again. Hope you answer them this time. Please see below: On 03/01/22 4:39 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

1+ to Olivier:

There is no "ism". It is better to use language like "the multistakeholder approach". The original concept came from the WSIS 1 (2003) when two conflicting proposals for a "one stakeholder approach" (leadership) for the governing of the Internet were on the table:

I understand that in your country, Germany, it is the government which sets and enforces all Internet/ digital policies, as it does in all other areas (in howsoever a consultative manner, which btw is the realm of participatory democracy and not MSism which is a direct post-democratic political capture). have you called out this problematic "one stakeholder approach" in your country? If not, why so... Do you believe that Germany should make its Internet/ digital policies with equal right to corporations as with the government?

Governments (China) vs. Private Sector (US). The wisdom of the WGIG was to recognize that the Internet does not need a "leader", but the involvement of *all *related stakeholders (in their respective roles).

Is Germany's Internet governance 'the respective roles' thing or "one stakeholder approach"? I will appreciate clear and direct responses . Because one wants to really know what things conveniently elastic concepts are meant to mean. So, please, as a good theorist, when you use concepts, define them, and if possible also illustrate, including with counter examples.

Meanwhile, I asked in another email, why, for instance, trade unions (or women and farmers) are not stakeholders, as in UN systems and in OECD (trade unions), and we have this industry-serving foursome formula as the mantra in IG? Who decides who the relevant stakeholders are?

The working definition, which made its way "1to1" into the Tunis Agenda, included also the concept of "sharing". The working definition was presented as an invitation for further conceptual clarification.

Yes, are you happy to do a meeting on such conceptual clarification -- I have been asking for it for at least 15 years.. Including above, as you will see, which I am almost sure -- from long experience -- that you will not engage with.

Unfortunately, after 2005 the WGIG concept was pulled into a senseless power struggle between "isms": Multilateralism vs. Multistakeholderism. This conflict was nonsense from the very first day.

Ah! Nonsense! Right .. the MSists made it nonsense.. Developing countries and groups like ours supported IGF formation at WSIS when developed countries, and ISOC and ICANN were firmly opposed to it. Others including in civil society were happy with a capacity building role for IGF, which we firmly opposed and sought a policy dialogue role.

Including at the UN WG on IGF Improvements, developing countries and organizations like ours gave detailed proposals to further genuine multistakeholder participation (with very good safeguards too) -- which you as a member of the group joined developed countries, tech community and business to firmly oppose, whereby those could not be adopted. Find enclosed the 'India proposal' in this regard, which I helped develop. May I question why you did you not support this effort to strengthen multistakeholder systems, and rejected it out of hand, did not even negotiate with it. We had, through some hard work, got almost all developing countries behind this proposal.

Now, I come to how these ideas, terms, etc, become nonsensical, and your contribution to it.

First: I have often asked you this, and wont stop asking. How OECD's Committee for Digital Economy Policies -- which is where globally the most digital policy development work currently takes place (and wonder of wonders, none talks about -- they recently adopted a legal instrument on AI governance, and are now forcing it on the whole world) -- with its intergov decision making with stakeholder advisory committees, and similar digital policy making systems of CoE, are considered as multistakeholder? IISOC has officially called them that, and you yourself participate in them -----

But when IBSA or India proposes the EXACT same governance model -- deliberately a cut-paste from OECD, the whole IG world erupts in disgust over 'imposition' of multilateral-ism and governmental control over the Internet, including yourself. In fact when the same model was proposed by developing countries -- i have that proposal too -- at the WG for enhanced cooperation too, you rejected it in my presence as anti-multistakeholderist -- joining with developing countries, business and ISOC in doing so?

It is all this that made these ideas and concepts nonsensical -- the way they were blatantly used and abused to further the incumbent power of US and its allies, and their corporations.... You are right there, in bearing the responsibility, for such nonsensical-isation of these otherwise worthy ideas and concepts .. Which now you rue ..

And more recently, bringing back precisely the kind of things you rejected at the IGF improvement WG through the backdoor of MAG based IGF 'evolution' and now the digital cooperation thing (led by that great monopolist Bill Gates, sorry his then wife, and Jack Ma, who now is almost in hiding from regulatory crackdown), but shorn of the safeguards we have kept in our IGF WG proposal to contain abuse by corporatist power ... (happy to discuss the differences)

But maybe you have responses, and can show that all what I say simply did not happen... eager to hear that..

With best personal wises, and a very happy new year, parminder

The Multilateral (Intergovernmental) treaty system will not disappear or can not be substituted by multistakeholder arrangements, but it is embedded in a "multistakeholder environment". If governments ignore, what civil society, business or the technical community has to say, it won´t work. On the other hand: Non-State actors can not substitute governments. But there are possibilities for additional multistakeholder arrangements which are based on voluntary commitments (RFCs are a good example). The multistakeholder approach is a process, a "round table" discussion where wisdom emerges from an open and inclusive debate bottom up. It is an exersize of free and frank discussion where listening is sometimes more important than shouting. This goes far beyond "formal consultations" (as parliamentary hearings).

This is indeed a new (political) culture which needs further conceptual and procedural clarifications. The NetMundial Statement (2014) delivered some criteria which allow a certain "measurement" for the quality of a multistakeholder process. There is no "one size fits all" multistakeholder model. How the relationship among the stakeholders in policy development and decision making is proceduraly organized, depends to a high degree from the nature of the subject. Cybersecurity needs a different governance model than digital trade or the protection of individual human rights as freedom of expression or privacy in the digital age.The IGF+ process (including the drafting of the proposed Global Digital Compact) offers an opportunity, to take the next conceptual steps. Openess, transparency, bottom up, inclusion, human rights based are good guidelines, but needs further clarification. And it needs procedures, how to move from A to B. Ther procedure which was developed within ICANN how the ICANN Board should deal with GAC advice is a good source of inspiration, how stakeholders can enhance their communication, coordination and collaboration within a multistakeholder process to produce tangible results. It is "stumbing forward" into unchartered territory.

The WGIG definition differentiated also between the *development *and the *use *of the Internet, that is the Governance *of *the Internet and Governance *on* the Internet. Governance of the Internet is described today as "Technical Internet Governance" (TIC), that is the management of a "neutral technical ressource" in the public interest of the global community. Such ressources are like "air". There is no American or Chinese air, there is clean air or polluted air. This risk in today´s geo-strategic armtwisting is, that those ressources are pulled into political conflicts with the risk to "pollute the air" (see the Russian proposal in the ITU-CWG-Internet).

Wolfgang

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 03.01.2022 03:16 geschrieben:

I have real issues taking seriously people who refer to "multistakeholderism" as an "...ism" like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, Buddhism, Catholicism.... There really is not such a thing a "multistakeholderism" but perhaps multistakeholder systems of governance. Lehto's criticism assumes that there is a single type of multistakeholder model out there and there really is not. Multistakeholder basically means that a variety of multiple stakeholder sit at the decision and discussion table, so how can one criticise it as if it was some form of established "system" by the elites, the cabal, the illuminati? Whatever? Or should we get back to absolute monarchy? :-)

Olivier

On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

The following, in a Criticism section, was removed from the wikipedia's page on "Multistakeholder governance":

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=...

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thanks Jonathan. I ask that everyone put aside the Blockchain aspect of this Assignment request. .HIPHOP as a TLD is not on the Blockchain and is not as a registry on the ENS. It never was. Being on the ENS is the choice of a domain name registrant and they can have a .com, .net or .horse for all that matters. That is what ICANN is missing. But lets put that aside because that is not why I brought this up on the At-Large list. What is in serious need to repair are ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. They are broken and for using them ICANN punished me (and my company). I dare challenged ICANN staff for not taking an action they were supposed to. And they retaliated against me and my company for challenging them. PLEASE READ THIS PART: One thing missed in all of this Is that ICANN recently executed a delegation of authority document from the ICANN Board to the ICANN staff in order to never require the ICANN Board to approve a REgistry Agreement again by resolution. SEE https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/delegation-of-authority-guidelin.... It was thought of at the time as perhaps a good thing because having to pass a board resolution for the thousands of routine TLD Agreements and routine changes is too much for a board. But following the law of unintended consequences…….. The ICANN Board did pass a resolution for .org and PIR, but did not pass a resolution to approve the most recent price amendments to the Verisign .com Agreement. With this delegation of power, there will never need to be Board action on a registry agreement in the future and therefore, because there will be no Board Resolution, you cannot ever file an Urgent Reconsideration Request where ICANN has executed a Registry Agreement. Pretty good manipulation of the process there, huh? Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:36 PM To: Jeff Neuman; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: ICANN Accountability Mechanisms I actually raised this very issue, while we were working on the accountability framework. At the time, folks believed the power to throw out the board would suffice but clearly that is a tool of last resort. I wonder if there are other examples of inaction so a session, of some sort, would not be focused on your case alone. While I share Evan's perspective, on this particular example, it DOES seem like a sequence of events we might dislike repeating, in another context. For example, there were several voices, in the At-Large community and elsewhere, opposed to the sale of PIR. Luckily, that sale required affirmative approval, by the board, but I'm certain their are instances where a failure to act constitutes passive approval. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:46:36 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms All, I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Please see https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-nam.... This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately). What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow. ——————— There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied. In short, ICANN has taken the position that: A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis. ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be. B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action. ————- This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain. Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does. —————— If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss. I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

DHH is not tied to the blockchain/nft in this case as explained and as demonstrated in the DI comment section. It seems however that ICANN GDD has issues wrapping their heads around how the blockchain works and that is not unusual as most folks have no idea how blockchain tech works. Most folks think that bitcoin is untraceable. While there are issues identifying the owner of the wallet you can perfectly track the transactions. Theo On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, at 8:45 PM, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:

In the ~10 years I attended ICANN meetings my impression was that there was a lot of talent and knowledge by participants in governance. Much more than, for example, the technical organizations I've been involved in.

Governance is an actual field of knowledge and not just a way to describe results for better or worse. "You cut, I choose, the rest is commentary" to paraphrase Hillel.

Yet despite that knowledge there seemed to be a broad resistance to implementing sound governance practices. Those in any position to do so seemed to take an attitude that any such implementation would threaten what they imagined were their own "insider" advantages.

Not surprisingly due to lack of sound governance and accountability this tended to backfire on any such plans as the organization grew to the point that the administrative activities trumped policy and overarching principled considerations often only honored in the breach.

To use a term recently popular in US government circles ICANN grew a "deep state".

There was an edifice of individuals, mostly the same individuals over and over, with titles which would appear to be in a position to implement sound governance yet seemed repelled by it lest it threaten their own interests.

And there was a large and ever-growing, and quite necessary, administrative bureaucracy who, again not unlike criticisms of the US government, saw that edifice as short-timers (perhaps not individually but in their shifting titles and roles), part-timers, mostly unpaid volunteers (or paid by external, interested parties), often acting as a mutual admiration society, and with perhaps nothing better to do than try to meddle in that administrative bureaucracy on which many millions of dollars and much detailed implementation responsibility rested.

It's not surprising, to me, that we are where we are. Particularly in an organization without any ties to a plebiscite.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

For the record, I included the ICANN CEO on all of my communications with ICANN over the past month as well as the Ombudsman. I am documenting the specific issues that have arisen and would love the opportunity to present them to the At-large if this is of interest. And of course, if anyone has an opposing view, that would be very important to hear as well. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC Jeff@JJNSolutions.com +1.202.549.5079 Http://www.jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 6:37 AM To: Jonathan Zuck; Jeff Neuman; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms On 30/12/2021 19:36, Jonathan Zuck via At-Large wrote: I actually raised this very issue, while we were working on the accountability framework. At the time, folks believed the power to throw out the board would suffice but clearly that is a tool of last resort. Many people, myself included, raised the question of staff accountability - and also during successive ATRT sessions. And for reasons that are their own, others resisted this and thought everything hinged on the Board - how naive. I recall responses separately made during the usual ALAC "grilling" sessions of the ICANN CEO at each iCANN meeting, of both successive CEOs, Fadi Chehadé and Göran Marby, and staff accountability was dealt with internally and that the CEO of ICANN is the warrantor of that accountability. Perhaps should you complain to the ICANN CEO about his organisation's alleged inability to take action in a reasonable time? Kindest regards, Olivier

On 1/2/22 15:41, Carlton Samuels via At-Large wrote:

This is a story in reprise from heated conversations many years ago at the Sloan School of Management when corporate strategy was discussed.

I readily confess that I am one who believes that it is the CEO who must answer to the Board on the matter of staff output.

It's useful to remember that ICANN is a California corporation and, as such, ultimate responsibility (and liability) is vested in the board of directors. (That responsibility is actually greater for board members of non-profits than it is for for-profits.) That's why California law explicitly and clearly gives each individual director the "absolute right" to examine any and all corporate papers, ledgers, facilities, and other property or relationships. When I exercised that power (which took a 18months of litigation with ICANN, which I won) I took a look at the corporate ledgers. I found nothing horrible or criminal; rather I found the usual kinds of things that go awry in new organizations. For instance I found a lack of control over staff travel. Indeed I discovered on staffer who had traveled around the world several times in one year, stopping at nice places at prime times of year, like Davos in the ski season. ICANN has, I believe, long since put into place better travel controls as a result. (I also discovered ICANN also had no employee handbook or rules to govern staff conduct. That, too, was fixed as a result of my inquiries.) It can be disruptive when board members do exercise their power of inquiry, so a sense of discretion and scale ought to be self-imposed. For instance, I chose not to do a physical inspection of the L-root server system because doing so, although within my authority, would have raised a small (but real) concern about the physical security. ICANN's board has greatly improved since my day, but it remains excessively impassive. I ascribe that to a couple of reasons. First is the nominating committee method. I conceive of it as much like one of those barrels into which one pours rough stones and polishing abrasives. After a run through the system - whether it be the nominating committee or a rock polishing barrel - the results are smooth and without any sharp points, pleasing to view and inoffensive to anything they may touch. In other words, ICANN's nominating committee system unlikely to produce nominees (actually selections) that have many qualities that tend to go hand-in-hand with a desire to deeply dig into the corporation and see if anything is awry. Second is the tendency of board members to understand their roles and responsibilities. That is not helped when too many people on boards believe that corporate counsel or corporate legal works in the board's interest (much less in their own interest as an individual board member.) Corporate counsel represents the entity of the corporation, not any particular piece of the corporation. And corporate counsels, like me in my own companies, tend to take very conservative, protective positions. I don't like it when my corporate management overrules my legal opinions, but that's life and it is their power and duty to measure legal advice against other matters. It is 100% appropriate for a board, after reasoned and informed contemplation, to tell corporate counsel to take its opinion and shove it into a place where the sun rarely shines. A CEO (or in ICANN's case, the job is formally called "President") is merely a hireling of the board. ICANN has a long history of the board letting itself be stampeded and overcome by the person it hires. That's not right; a board always needs to be prepared to take actions to remove a President/CEO. That authority may be exercised even if there is a long term employment contract - a board can always dis-empower the person but may have to pay him/her the contracted amount. By-the-way, I do not agree with ICANN's placement of the President on the board of directors. We disagreed with that even in the initial Boston Working Group (BWG) proposals when ICANN was being formed - https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ --karl--