September 2013 - atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Agenda + Material - Reminder - Call today @ 23:00-00:30 UTC -
by Alice Jansen Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly reminded that you have a full Review Team call Today at 23:00-00:30 UTC ( time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+08+&iso…) Please refer to your calendar invite for dial-in details. Once on the telephone bridge, please make sure to join the adobe connect room (enter as guest) - http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ The call will be streamed via http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ or http://stream.icann.org:8000/atrt. Please find enclosed a proposed agenda for your consideration (also available at:https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Conference+Call+08) 1. Adopt call agenda 2. Update to SoIs (if needed) 3. Review Durban calendar & proposed face-to-face meeting agenda 4. Review & prepare questions for sessions with ICANN Community & staff 5. Staff update: letters to government officials, RFP 6. A.O.B Attached you will find to following: * Durban calendar; * Proposed Face-to-Face Meeting Agenda; * Compilation of Questions. Thanks Very best regards Alice ---- Alice Jansen Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Office: +32 289 474 03 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann Email: alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>

1 1

Staff clarification and request for additional information - Inventory Item #15 and #35
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

Dear Avri, Staff has been reviewing the proposed observations and recommendations considered by the ATRT 2 and would like to offer several clarifications. Additionally, it would be very helpful to get further clarification from the Review Team on several points raised. As you are the ATRT 2 member assigned to complete the analysis and the documentation on these particular item, staff would appreciate your consideration of the information summarized here and your response of clarification. Inventory Item #15 - Assess Ombudsman relationship and confirm framework is consistent with international standards DRAFT Observation or Recommendation: * ICANN should review ombudsman bylaw to ensure adherence to international standards in an effort to build confidence amongst stakeholders. * ICANN needs to reconsider the role of the Ombudsman office as a symbol of good governance and incorporate the office in transparency processes. * ICANN should consider the use of the Ombudsman in internal mediation processes. Staff Clarification and Request for Additional Information: Staff would appreciate a clarification from ATRT 2 regarding what is meant by "internal mediation processes" and "incorporate the office in transparency processes." Inventory Item #35 - Review actions of the Board and staff in ensuring public interest: Publication of yearly statistical reports on transparency Draft recommendation: ICANN should include a yearly transparency report as part of its yearly report. ICANN Transparency report needs to include a section on Employee whistleblowing activity including metric on: i. Reports submitted ii. Reports that resulted in change to ICANN practices This report should be created under the supervision of the ICANN Ombudsman. This requires a change to By-laws on the Ombudsman scope. Staff Clarification and Request for Additional Information: Staff would appreciate a clarification of "yearly transparency report." ICANN already issues an annual report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/atrt-implementation-re…> on implementation and progress on ATRT1 recommendations. Do you mean "Annual Report of Whistleblower Activities"? If that is the case, it would be helpful to clarify this with a more descriptive term in your recommendation. Staff would suggest the term "Anonymous Hotline" based on research of best practices. Additionally, while staff does not anticipate any issues with being able to report how the Anonymous Hotline is being used, ICANN's ability to report publically on results from Anonymous Hotline may be limited in certain cases due to legal implications. ICANN may be limited to providing a generic disposition due to such legal limitations. Staff appreciates the significant work effort that you and the Review Team have committed to making ongoing improvements in ICANN's accountability and transparency. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

2 1

ATRT2 - Call 11 with ICANN Staff - 10 Sept @ 14:00-15:30 UTC
by Charla Shambley Sept. 9, 2013

Sept. 9, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Your conference call 11 is scheduled for: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 14:00-15:30 UTC (Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+11&iso=…) Link to Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ CONFERENCE ID: 27318 Topics for Discussion with Staff: • Cross-Community deliberation process • Community engagement (ICANN Labs and other updates) • ATRT 1 Recommendation #15: Implement stratified, prioritized public Notice & Comment Dial-in numbers: are listed below according to your country of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list available at: http://adigo.com/icann/ Should you require a dial-out, please provide us with your phone number. Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney – T - +61 290 372 962 Melbourne – T – +61 399 996 500 Brisbane – T – +61 731 777 546 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 New - 0800 892 3882 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 China North - 10 800 712 1212 South - 10 800 120 1212 All - 400 120 0691 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Denmark L - 8088 7326 M - 8088 6280 T - +45 89 880 470 France 0800 913 680 0800 90 25 56 T -+33 975 181 806 Kenya No dial-in number available. Kindly provide your number and we will dial out to you. Russia New - 8 10 8002 2085011 T - 7 499 5042850 Turkey T - +90 212 414 2697 United Kingdom 0800 056 9431 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921

4 3

Re: [atrt2] Implementation of WHOIS Review Team Recommendations - Update as of 30 August
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2013

Sept. 8, 2013

Thank you Michael. Alan At 08/09/2013 03:38 PM, Michael Yakushev wrote: >Larisa, colleagues - please find attached my >additions to the initial Alan's proposal on WS3 >of ATRT2 (implementation of WHOIS RT). Any >suggestions and comments are welcome. >I am also sorry to notify, that due to a >terrible scheduling conflict, I will be unable >to attend in person our meeting in Washington >D.C., and being airborne during most of the >sessions on Thursday, I will be able to join you remotely on Friday. >Kind regards, >Michael > > >2013/9/1 Larisa B. Gurnick ><<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org> > >Dear Review Team Members, > > > >Staff prepared the attached update on the >implementation of WHOIS Review Team >recommendations. After youve had a chance to >review this update, we will coordinate a call >with the key staff involved in the >implementation to address your questions. Staff >would like to highlight several important points: > > > > Staff is implementing based on the >specific directive from the Board. While the >Board agreed with the overall spirit of WHOIS RT >recommendations, the Board did not accept every >recommendation as written and provided explicit >direction to staff for how to carry out >implementation. Staff should be evaluated on >implementation based on ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12…>Board >direction (see Appendix for Board Action and Rationale). > > Implementation is still in >progress, as Board direction was provided in >November 2012, less than 12 months ago. The >attached update provides milestones and due >dates as a road map for the various projects. > > > >Staff realizes the challenge faced by the Review >Team, relative to assessing the extent to which >the Board and Staff have implemented the >recommendations arising out of the other >commitment reviews stated by the AoC, while >making recommendations on the substance of the >implementation would be the job of the next >WHOIS RT. Staff looks forward to a productive >interaction with the Review Team. > > > >Larisa B. Gurnick > >Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews > >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > ><mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org > >310 383-8995 > > > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list ><mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 > > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="ATRT2-Whois_Implementation-Status-2013-08-29.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="ATRT2-Whois_Implementation-Status-2013-08-29.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: f_hlcnsz4l1 > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list >atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

1 0

Implementation of WHOIS Review Team Recommendations - Update as of 30 August
by Larisa B. Gurnick Sept. 8, 2013

Sept. 8, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Staff prepared the attached update on the implementation of WHOIS Review Team recommendations. After you've had a chance to review this update, we will coordinate a call with the key staff involved in the implementation to address your questions. Staff would like to highlight several important points: * Staff is implementing based on the specific directive from the Board. While the Board agreed with the overall spirit of WHOIS RT recommendations, the Board did not accept every recommendation as written and provided explicit direction to staff for how to carry out implementation. Staff should be evaluated on implementation based on Board direction<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12…> (see Appendix for Board Action and Rationale). * Implementation is still in progress, as Board direction was provided in November 2012, less than 12 months ago. The attached update provides milestones and due dates as a road map for the various projects. Staff realizes the challenge faced by the Review Team, relative to assessing "the extent to which the Board and Staff have implemented the recommendations arising out of the other commitment reviews" stated by the AoC, while making recommendations on the substance of the implementation would be the job of the next WHOIS RT. Staff looks forward to a productive interaction with the Review Team. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

2 1

Update on the Beta Launch of the WHOIS Informational Portal
by Margie Milam Sept. 6, 2013

Sept. 6, 2013

Dear All, I wanted to provide you with an update of the status of the WHOIS Informational Portal. The beta launch for the WHOIS Information Portal that was scheduled for today has been delayed slightly. Although the development of the website is complete, the final content check requires more time than originally anticipated and is expected to be complete next week. ICANN would like to set up a demo during the following week (September 16th) with the ATRT-2, to get your feedback and enable you to factor it into your work. The purpose of the beta launch is to reach out to interested members of the community to get input on whether there might be other information that could make the portal more useful to the ICANN community. We are also looking forward to our discussions with you on Thursday to update you on other developments with regard to WHOIS. All the best, Margie ________ Margie Milam Senior Director- Strategic Initiatives ICANN ________

1 0

Re: [atrt2] ATRT 2 Upcoming In-Person Meetings - Washington DC and Buenos Aires
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

They have received no response and form from me because I received nothing from them! No doubt that is because my travel dates are contingent on the ALAC and those are still under discussion. For the record, I will be in Buenos Aires for at least those days required by the ATRT. Alan At 03/09/2013 08:56 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: >Dear Review Team Members, > >We would like to be sure that we have accurate >information regarding your plans to attend the >Buenos Aires meeting. Based on the update we >received from ICANN Constituency Travel a few >minutes ago, they have responses from only a few >of you. As you may know, weve had some >intermittent issues with our email service over >the last few days and apologize if your response >was not captured accurately as a result. > >Please review the summary below and get back to >me and ICANN Constituency Travel by 5 PM PST, >Wednesday, 4 September if your travel plans are >not reflected correctly. Your Travel Request >Forms need to be submitted to ICANN Constituent >Travel no later than 5 pm PST on 4 September. >If you need any assistance, the travel team as >well as Alice, Charla and I are here to help you. > >[] > > >Best regards, >Larisa > >From: atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick >Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:09 AM >To: ATRT2 (atrt2(a)icann.org) >Cc: ICANN Constituency Travel >Subject: [atrt2] ATRT 2 Upcoming In-Person >Meetings - Washington DC and Buenos Aires > >Dear Review Team Members, >I would like to clarify the particulars of your upcoming trips. >Washington DC (Thursday, 19 September Friday, 20 September) >To accommodate your request for an additional >meeting in Washington DC, while maintaining >fiscal responsibility, staff will move forward >with travel arrangements on an accelerated >basis. The meeting will take place on Thursday >and Friday (full days), with the specific agenda >to be developed shortly. Participants will >arrive on Wednesday, 18 September and depart on >Friday night, 20 September, based on flight availability. >Members planning to attend the Washington DC >meeting in-person will need to finalize their >travel arrangements by 5 pm PST on Friday, 30 >August. Constituency Travel has already >contacted you regarding your travel >arrangements. If Constituency Travel does not >hear from you before 5:00 pm PST Friday 30 >August, they will assume that you plan to >participate in the meeting remotely. This >aggressive timeline is necessary given the short >lead time for your selected meeting date and the >high cost of airfares and hotel. >Buenos Aires (Monday, 18 November Wednesday, 20 November) >Staff will work to have ATRT 2 sessions >scheduled within the timeframe identified during >the last Los Angeles meeting Monday through >Wednesday. Participants will arrive on Sunday, >17 November and depart on Wednesday night, 20 >November, based on flight availability. >While every effort will be made to accommodate >in-person meetings with all requested groups, >conference calls may be an option in some cases >should staff run into scheduling difficulties with other groups. >Constituency Travel will be in touch with you as >soon as possible regarding your travel >arrangements for this trip, and your response >will be needed by 5 pm PST on Friday, 30 August. >I hope that this information clarifies questions >raised in previous communications. Please dont >hesitate to contact me, Alice or Charla >regarding these meeting schedules. Constituency >Travel will address any of your travel related questions. >Thank you for your understanding, >Larisa B. Gurnick >Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ><mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org >310 383-8995 > > > >_______________________________________________ >atrt2 mailing list >atrt2(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

3 2

ATRT2 - Call 11 - 5 Sept @ 19:00-20:30
by Charla Shambley Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Call 11, scheduled for 5 September @ 19:00-20:30 has been scheduled. Please look for a doodle poll to be issued by tomorrow morning requesting your input for an additional call next week. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Review Team Members, Your conference call 11 is scheduled for: Thursday, 5 September 2013 19:00-20:30 UTC Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+11&iso=… Link to Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ CONFERENCE ID: 27318 Dial-in numbers: are listed below according to your country of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list available at: http://adigo.com/icann/ Should you require a dial-out, please provide us with your phone number. Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney – T - +61 290 372 962 Melbourne – T – +61 399 996 500 Brisbane – T – +61 731 777 546 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 New - 0800 892 3882 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 China North - 10 800 712 1212 South - 10 800 120 1212 All - 400 120 0691 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Denmark L - 8088 7326 M - 8088 6280 T - +45 89 880 470 France 0800 913 680 0800 90 25 56 T -+33 975 181 806 Kenya No dial-in number available. Kindly provide your number and we will dial out to you. Russia New - 8 10 8002 2085011 T - 7 499 5042850 United Kingdom 0800 056 9431 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193

2 1

Canceled: ATRT2 - Call 11 - 5 Sept @ 19:00-20:30
by Charla Shambley Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Call 11, scheduled for 5 September @ 19:00-20:30 has been scheduled. Please look for a doodle poll to be issued by tomorrow morning requesting your input for an additional call next week. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Executive Assistant ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Review Team Members, Your conference call 11 is scheduled for: Thursday, 5 September 2013 19:00-20:30 UTC Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ATRT2+Call+11&iso=… Link to Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/ CONFERENCE ID: 27318 Dial-in numbers: are listed below according to your country of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list available at: http://adigo.com/icann/ Should you require a dial-out, please provide us with your phone number. Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney – T - +61 290 372 962 Melbourne – T – +61 399 996 500 Brisbane – T – +61 731 777 546 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 New - 0800 892 3882 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 China North - 10 800 712 1212 South - 10 800 120 1212 All - 400 120 0691 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Denmark L - 8088 7326 M - 8088 6280 T - +45 89 880 470 France 0800 913 680 0800 90 25 56 T -+33 975 181 806 Kenya No dial-in number available. Kindly provide your number and we will dial out to you. Russia New - 8 10 8002 2085011 T - 7 499 5042850 United Kingdom 0800 056 9431 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193

1 0

Examples of Where ICANN Can Be More Accountable
by "Carlos Raúl G." Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Avri, Not only have I won a much better impression of Chuck Gomez, lastly trough the interersting email exchange recently held by Alan Greenberg and our last phone call with GNSO council, I also think that the note hereunder is much better written, argued and substantiated note than the accusations list by Milton Mueller you recently made us aware of. Particularly the budget figure, if true, for the 5 new panels makes a very interesting benchmark to ATRT2 troubles in finding a reasonable hotel rate for spending an extra friday night in Washington DC. In analysing our challenging spreadsheet for days ahead, I wonder if Chuck Gomez arguments hereunder shouldn't be included in our forward looking recommendations for future review exercises, down to the question of full independence of those teams from ICANN, once the implementation report for the previous years has been received and the budget set. This relates closely, in my short experience, with the fruitless waste of time in GAC inner discussions for an independent secretariat while donors monies where readily available. By the way I have ot forgotten our common tasks. Sadly the change of the time for tomorrows call makes my participation impossible as I'm in meetings in Lima. Hope we can connect soon! Carlos Raul http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130904_examples_of_where_icann_can_be_more_… Examples of Where ICANN Can Be More Accountable During the "GNSO Discussion with the CEO" at the recent ICANN meeting in Durban, I stated that ICANN talks a lot about the importance of supporting the public interest, but in reality the organization's first priority is protecting itself and therefore it avoids accountability and works very hard at transferring risks to others. In response to my comments, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé asked me to provide him examples of where ICANN can be more accountable. Copied below is my response letter to Chehadé, which provides six examples. * * * August 30, 2013 Fadi Chehadé President and Chief Executive Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Re: GNSO Discussion with ICANN CEO Dear Fadi: As you will recall, we had an exchange during the GNSO discussion at the recent ICANN meeting in Durban. In that exchange, which is reprinted from ICANN's transcript below, I indicated that ICANN was not holding itself accountable and that ICANN was elevating risk-avoidance over true accountability. In response, you asked me to send you a list of items that I felt displayed this behavior by ICANN. This letter contains a short list of such items that I have prepared in response to your request. By no means is this list intended to be exhaustive of the examples that could be identified to prove my point. Rather, this list is intended to be illustrative of the kind of unaccountable actions we have seen from ICANN in the recent past. July 14, 2013 Exchange Between Chuck Gomes and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé Gomes: . . . there is [sic] a lot of words given to the public interest and ICANN serving the public interest and partnership, etcetera. The one thing that it [sic] has continued in ICANN the corporation is that the number one priority is always protecting ICANN the corporation. That comes before public interest. That comes before partnerships. And in my opinion ICANN has never really been willing to step up very much at all in terms of assuming accountability for some of the things. The accountability is pushed down to contracted parties, to registrants, to everyone else except the corporation. And I've never seen any meaningful movement away from that. And in my opinion it would be very helpful if there was shared accountability and that takes lots of forms. So I point that out because that's an area where I think if anything the corporation has even become worse at in the last year. Thank you. Chehadé: I invite you to send me a list of the areas you think we can increase our accountability. Examples of ICANN's Unaccountable Actions as Requested by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé 1. One prominent example of ICANN's unwillingness to be held accountable is with its agreements with registries and registrars. Whether it is a desire to minimize the number of resources devoted to contractual compliance, reduce the cycles to achieve policy completion or to increase the amount of control that ICANN has in this multi-stakeholder model, these agreements from the start have been slanted to ICANN's favor and burdensome for applicants, registrars, and registries. All risks have been flowed down to registries and registrars with requirements to indemnify ICANN while removing any chance for the contracted parties to take action against ICANN, if warranted. This was compounded further in 2013 when the ICANN staff, in a surprise move, decided to impose the unilateral right to amend clauses in the new gTLD registry agreements. To this point of accountability, Verisign said at the time in a public comment the following: In the current framework described in Section 7.6, ICANN cannot be held accountable because there is no mechanism to do so. ICANN refuses to allow any dispute about the "public interest" to be settled by a court of competent jurisdiction. Instead, ICANN is requiring arbitration lasting exactly one day. This response alone is telling: How could judicial review of a regulatory authority's unilateral actions possibly be against the "public interest"? It is as if the community is being asked by ICANN to "wait and see" or to simply "trust us." If judicial review does not fall within the "public interest" standard, it is reasonable to question ICANN's perspective on, and analysis behind, what it may find to be in the "public interest." Without defined criteria, accountability or consistency, how can the community that ICANN was created to serve rely on ICANN to reasonably determine what is in the "public interest?" 2. Since the Paris meeting in June of 2008, ICANN has extolled the benefits of new gTLDs to potential applicants, including brand owners. It was not until after applications were submitted in April 2012, and after hundreds of initial string evaluations had been conducted, that in August 2013 ICANN warned the world about possible SSR impacts that the SSAC had been communicating to ICANN and the ICANN Board of Directors through SSAC reports and advisories over the last four years. We view ICANN's refusal to address the well documented SSR issues as indicative of its lack of accountability. No accountable organization would ignore the advice that ICANN has ignored for four years. If my Board of Directors did so in a similar fashion, the Board would be voted out, or sued, or both. Did ICANN consider the consequences of prioritizing the rollout of new gTLDs over security and stability for the betterment of the organization? ICANN's inattention to fundamental SSR issues is only one aspect of its accountability problem. We saw (and have now commented upon) ICANN's proposal to mitigate the risks of name collisions and frankly, we are shocked at ICANN's refusal to accept responsibility for the risks. Under ICANN's proposal, all of the duties to preserve the stability and security of the DNS, as well as all of the risks and costs, are transferred by ICANN to applicants. One such risk is very clearly that ICANN's proposal would almost certainly threaten the reputation of any brand applicant. Did ICANN consider that it is possible, if not likely, that reputational damage to a brand could result from that brand being required to warn users of harm caused by what is essentially a marketing campaign? Applicants would have to tell the global Internet services, businesses, and brand-loyal consumer communities that delegation of their brand TLD could break their networks and possibly result in the loss of confidential information and possibly enable cyber-attacks and other nefarious behavior. Does ICANN recognize, and will it be accountable for, prioritization of the new gTLD rollout over security and stability in a way that stands to hurt brands while enhancing the position of ICANN the organization over the community once again? To place this burden on applicants — with no community discussion, and no sensitivity to the potential reputational, legal, and other serious risks — is inconsiderate at best and most likely a calculated move to protect ICANN. This was precisely my point to you in Durban as reflected in the transcript above. 3. A third example is related to ICANN's lack of accountability to its own multi-stakeholder processes. A clear recommendation from the Board-approved New gTLD PDP was that new strings should not be confusingly similar to existing gTLD, ccTLD, or other applied-for strings. In the implementation process of the new gTLD recommendations, the GNSO Council recommended that an exception process be designed to avoid false positives, i.e., cases where there might be visual string confusion but no actual user confusion. However, with vague rationale and minimal communication, ICANN staff refused to follow this advice. Specifically, in dealing with the issue of plural and singular strings, ICANN took a very liberal position that they are not confusingly similar and appear to have pushed this decision to the objection panels so as to not have to be accountable for terminating some future strings; it is quite likely that ICANN would not have had to do so if it had dealt with the exception procedure as recommended by its gTLD policy making body. ICANN has created the untenable situation today, where some plurals have been accepted and others have been rejected by these review teams. The question now is whether ICANN will accept responsibility and be held accountable for the situation created by its decisions. 4. Another example is ICANN staff's recent tendency to issue top-down edicts that do not include community discussion while at the same time touting the virtues of the global multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. It is a gross inconsistency to make such claims while operating in a top-down manner that does an end-run around the very multi-stakeholder processes from which it was founded. Change is fine, but change must arise from within the established governance model and not be driven by self-interested parties that are out of step with the consensus views. Reversing or ignoring decisions that arise within the multi-stakeholder processes by cherry-picking favorable public comments cannot be construed as a true implementation of the multi-stakeholder model. ICANN's consideration and analysis of public comments too often reflects its own view and often provides mere lip service to views that are inconsistent with ICANN's institutional preferences. ICANN is charged with resisting the tendency to merely act in its own self-interest. The public comment process is an important part of the multi-stakeholder process as it allows for discussion and suggestions from those not participating within the multiple constituencies and provides a last check to ensure that the process has gotten it right. A recent example of this relates to the previously mentioned process for making end-users aware of security issues pertaining to name collisions in the DNS. A hurried staff solution void of understanding of the unintended consequences and, where the proposed solution is so transparently in ICANN's own best interest, is not consistent with the conduct of an accountable organization and is the opposite of a multi-stakeholder or consensus-driven process. One of the key advantages of the multi-stakeholder model is to obtain broad input from representative stakeholders before making recommendations so that the public comments can be solicited on reasonably complete proposals. ICANN needs to be accountable to itself and to the community to uphold the multi-stakeholder process even when it is inconvenient for it to do so. 5. The establishment of the five strategic panels and the creation of "ICANN LABS" is another recent example of ICANN's lack of accountability to the community and to the multi-stakeholder model. The purpose of these two efforts is to set the tone and direction for ICANN in the future apparently over the traditional consensus building process required by the AOC. A sustainable multi-stakeholder model is constituted by, and considerate of, the community at-large and yet these strategic initiatives are composed of ICANN-selected members and are managed by ICANN alone. We understand that $3.5 million has been allocated in the FY14 budget for the five strategic panels; I do not know how much is allocated for the Labs project. To this point, I am not aware of any discussion with the broader ICANN community on either of these efforts even though they will use significant portions of community-provided funds and could have a significant impact on ICANN future decisions and direction. It is certainly possible that these uncoordinated initiatives might have a positive impact but I am confident of one thing: The chances of them having a positive impact would have been increased if ICANN sought community input before initiating them. Both efforts are perfect examples of ICANN's recent propensity to operate in an unaccountable top-down approach instead of ICANN's traditional and mandated bottom-up fashion. 6. My final example relates to the posting of ICANN staff's proposed Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements that took place on August 6. As mentioned above, ICANN staff simply ignored input from applicants who had been working with them for weeks and ICANN itself determined what the requirements should be. The group that had been initially working on this with ICANN suggested that their proposed revisions be integrated into the ICANN staff proposed requirements to ensure a fairer consideration of them. You will recall that a similar action happened with the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and you promised that it would not happen again. Nevertheless, once again, the ICANN staff posted its own version of the proposed revisions excluding key elements. In my opinion that was, at best, inconsiderate of the multi-stakeholder model and of the working teams; in addition this action calls into question the motivation of the ICANN staff involved and the motives of its leadership. Those of us who had worked for weeks on this at least hoped that there would be an opportunity to obtain community input on our suggestions but only a small subset of them were included, and even those that were included were colored by ICANN staff commentary. Based on these recent actions, it appears as though the ICANN staff is taking advantage of the motivation by many to get their TLDs approved quickly and therefore is acting in an unaccountable manner inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model.  If the examples of ICANN's unaccountable conduct noted above were minor or were infrequent, I would not be as concerned. Rather, the examples seem to represent the new standard operating policy for ICANN that, if anything, is getting more acute. I fully understand the ICANN Board's fiduciary responsibility to protect the corporation but when this desire prevents ICANN from acting in the public interest, which is a paramount Board responsibility, then something is seriously askew. There needs to be balance when interests collide and there is very little if any balance now. Sincerely, Chuck Gomes Vice President, Policy VeriSign, Inc. By Chuck Gomes, VP of Policy and Compliance, Naming and Directory Services at VeriSign Related topics: Domain Names, Registry Services, ICANN, Internet Governance, Policy & Regulation, Top-Level Domains Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez SUTEL, Costa Rica +506 6060 7176 Skype carlos.raulg

1 0