ICANN staff misuse the word "implementation" in order to avoid going through the GNSO for new policies
Hi folks, During yesterday's Registration Abuse Policies working group, the issue of “policy” creation and how it should be done properly came up. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00206.html http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rap-20090601.mp3 Fast forward to 27:10 (27 minutes and 10 seconds) of the MP3 recording and listen to the next 2 minutes where I ask Margie Milam of ICANN a question about policy vs. implementation. At 27:24 or so she says the ICANN Bylaws *require* policy work to go through the GNSO. But, at 28:05 or so she says “The IRT work is *implementation work.*” !!! She dances around the issue for the next 40 seconds. Policies *need* to go through the GNSO. However, ICANN Staff are describing *all* the new gTLD stuff as *implementation*, even though they are definitely creating new policy. Furthermore, take a look at the IRT’s full name “Implementation Recommendation Team.” Once again, this is doublespeak by ICANN, a way to circumvent proper procedures. These recommendations *are policy* and should be going through the GNSO. That would have resulted in balanced work, instead of the abomination and extreme report we received. So, be watchful, as ICANN staff are mischaracterizing and deliberately calling things “implementation” in order to be able to do as much as possible in terms of policy creation in an unaccountable manner. Whether you're a supporter or an opponent of new gTLDs, whether you're a supporter or opponent of the IRT, this unaccountable behaviour of staff should be of concern, as it undermines the the role of the GNSO, and thus the role of the BC. I would hope this would be raised in the GNSO Council, as it is being neutered by staff and made more irrelevant day after day. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I agree with George that at least some pieces of the IRT recommendations are clearly policy recommendations, and major ones at that -- and not mere technical implementation. The URS is certainly one of these. It might better be called the Uniform Rapid Suspension Policy, since it both overlaps with and supplements the Uniform Dispute Resolution POLICY. If the URS is adopted and ICANN is even half right about the number of new gTLDs to be applied for and created it would be a powerful policy in place at the majority of gTLDs. Regardless of one's position on the IRT recommendations, and on new gTLDs generally, it is very important that whatever is done proceed through proper procedures. The precedents set by this process will have repercussions for years. For example, the BC often has disputes with the Registry or Registrar Constituencies -- would we want ICANN to appoint one of them to form a "team" to propose "solutions" on some other matter and then have those adopted without GNSO consideration because they were characterized as Implementation rather than Policy work? Despite complaints that GNSO reform gives the contract parties too much power, at least that power is tempered by referral to the GNSO that gives other constituencies a chance to shape their proposals and the final result. Likewise, some take the view that certain IRT recommendations go beyond protecting existing trademark rights and establish new ones -- the Global Protected Marks List being the prime example. We can debate that matter, but does anyone really want ICANN acting as a legislature and creating rights in the DNS that are not firmly rooted in national law and international treaty? Overriding proper procedure to expedite certain results can set precedents that may be sorely regretted down the road. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos [icann@leap.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:51 PM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN staff misuse the word "implementation" in order to avoid going through the GNSO for new policies Hi folks, During yesterday's Registration Abuse Policies working group, the issue of “policy” creation and how it should be done properly came up. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00206.html http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rap-20090601.mp3 Fast forward to 27:10 (27 minutes and 10 seconds) of the MP3 recording and listen to the next 2 minutes where I ask Margie Milam of ICANN a question about policy vs. implementation. At 27:24 or so she says the ICANN Bylaws *require* policy work to go through the GNSO. But, at 28:05 or so she says “The IRT work is *implementation work.*” !!! She dances around the issue for the next 40 seconds. Policies *need* to go through the GNSO. However, ICANN Staff are describing *all* the new gTLD stuff as *implementation*, even though they are definitely creating new policy. Furthermore, take a look at the IRT’s full name “Implementation Recommendation Team.” Once again, this is doublespeak by ICANN, a way to circumvent proper procedures. These recommendations *are policy* and should be going through the GNSO. That would have resulted in balanced work, instead of the abomination and extreme report we received. So, be watchful, as ICANN staff are mischaracterizing and deliberately calling things “implementation” in order to be able to do as much as possible in terms of policy creation in an unaccountable manner. Whether you're a supporter or an opponent of new gTLDs, whether you're a supporter or opponent of the IRT, this unaccountable behaviour of staff should be of concern, as it undermines the the role of the GNSO, and thus the role of the BC. I would hope this would be raised in the GNSO Council, as it is being neutered by staff and made more irrelevant day after day. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
From Philip Sheppard pp AIM
Without at this point discussing the content of the Final IRT report I would recommend all BC members read the excellent open letter (a couple of pages only) at the front of the report. This outlines clearly the objective of the IRT work (avoidance of harm for users). If there are BC members that disagree with this objective (leave aside process and outcome for now) it would be good to know as that would be a fundamental diversion from existing BC policy. Philip AIM
Hello, On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Without at this point discussing the content of the Final IRT report I would recommend all BC members read the excellent open letter (a couple of pages only) at the front of the report. This outlines clearly the objective of the IRT work (avoidance of harm for users). If there are BC members that disagree with this objective (leave aside process and outcome for now) it would be good to know as that would be a fundamental diversion from existing BC policy.
My company disagrees with the "open letter" and do not consider it "excellent" at all. We consider it a political letter, mere propaganda. For example, they wrote: "For most of us, it is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a trademark in the real world that you rely on to provide authentic goods or services is also the owner of a website that you find under the corresponding domain name." The way I read that statement, the "us" refers to pro-complainant TM attorneys who truly believe that even the most obscure TMs are "famous" and should trump any domain name ownership rules, even if the domain was created 10 years before the TM, even if it is in a different country than the TM, and even if it is being used in an entirely different class of goods/services than the TM. This is why they use language like "tapestry", as they simply don't want any changes to occur to the report as they believe it is already a balanced solution. In a tapestry, if you pull one thread from it, it unravels and falls apart. They've presented a "take it or leave it" solution, knowing ICANN is in a mood to cut any kind of deals it can in order to bring forward new gTLDs over the objections of the public. Their proposal is to implement their solution now, and fix things later. Not only that, *they* (the pro-complainant forces who already have a huge success rate in UDRPs, and who seek to gain even greater default rates through lack of notice to registrants through the URS) are the ones who want sole rights to "fix" things later: "If our recommendations are adopted, and if new gTLDs are launched, it could make sense for ICANN to ask a team qualified in trademark protection to take a fresh look at the impact of our recommendations after 18-24 months to determine whether they can be improved." We do not believe that "due process" and strong property rights for domain name registrants are a "fundamental diversion from existing BC policy." It would undermine the stability and security of business and ecommerce on the internet if the rule of law was undermined by such extreme measures by a self-selected minority as those in the IRT. The IRT stated: "Lurking in the darkest corners of cyberspace are the unscrupulous, the dishonest and the dangerous who prey on the unwary." Nietzche wrote "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." The IRT has become worse than the monster that they purport to be fighting, and they lose the moral high ground by their extreme and unbalanced proposals. Their recommendations and approach was unscrupulous and intellectually dishonest. Instead of operating in an open manner, they operated in secret, in darkness. Their recommendations are dangerous and prey upon the tens of millions of domain name registrants who are unwary of what is happening, that their rights are being severely diminished. The BC should oppose the recommendations, and the secretive non-inclusive process by which they were created. Sincerely, Geore Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter" please tell BC members more about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing. Philip pp AIM
Hello, On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
George, you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter"
please tell BC members more about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing.
Is this some sort of suggestion that my company isn't qualified to offer an opinion/position, or that my company is not representative of the many companies (and individuals) who've registered 180 million domain names worldwide? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Internet-Domain-Names-Surpass-iw-15423088.html I'd be curious to know who you believe should be able to comment on ICANN policy. My company has been a member of the BC for years, sailing through the credentials committee, etc. Indeed, I was trusted enough to be on the credentials committee, deciding who was qualified to be in the BC, before I decided to step down from that committee. It was my company that detected the flaws in the .biz/info/org contracts that would have permitted tiered pricing: http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/ It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder: http://www.circleid.com/posts/petition_against_site_finder/ http://www.verisignsucks.com/ http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm even before it launched (note the 3rd link was on September 9, 2003, whereas SiteFinder launched on September 15 as per the 4th link). If those qualifications aren't good enough to create informed comments, please do educate the rest of the BC as to what does qualify as informed comment. Do you believe only members of AIM should be allowed to participate in ICANN policymaking, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, I imply nothing. Its just that I know nothing about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing. Philip pp AIM
Hello, On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I imply nothing. Its just that I know nothing about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing.
You're free to consult my BC membership application from several years ago. I just consulted my Google Analytics statistics for just one of our websites (out of 500), and it had visitors from 235 countries/territories last year, including Antarctica, Sao Tome and Principe, Nauru, Comoros, and Cocos Islands. However, we don't judge companies by the number of employees they have, or their "reach" or other metrics like that. We welcome the views of companies large and small in order to come up with balanced solutions that demonstrate that input has come from all stakeholders. The BC should be inclusive, and indeed if one has read my input to the mailing list (and on other ICANN-related mailing lists) over the years, we have pushed hard for that. That's why we've advocated for lower wasteful spending, lower membership fees, public mailing lists, an elected treasurer, public budgets, an elected secretary, etc. As this is my 3rd (and thus final) post for the day, I'm afraid I won't be allowed to post on this list again until tomorrow. But, anyone is free to send me direct email. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I'd like to urge that we move ahead with implementing the parts of the CSG approach that would move administrative functions into centralized and ICANN staff supported support mechanism. Even if the 'seating' of the Policy Council is delayed, there are other pending recommendations that are about the administration/management functions that can move ahead. I'd like to have those remain on the discussion and priority list for change. As a small business OR a large business, what is important is that one meets the criteria for membership, and that there is complete neutrality in the application of membership criteria. I am not aware that any member is required to post their details to all other members. :-) However if this was just an indirect way [this is a joke] to propose a new BC 'social network' for getting acquainted with each other, sorry, I have too much work to do responding to all of ICANN's public comment processes!
From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:31:56 +0200
George, I imply nothing. Its just that I know nothing about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing.
Philip pp AIM
participants (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Marilyn Cade -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard