September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period
by Edward Hasbrouck Oct. 8, 2009

Oct. 8, 2009

To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the stated needs of the community." Translation is an ongoing issue, but I have not seen any such publicly stated "need" with respect to this issue in particular, any more than dozens or hundreds of other issues. More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of the decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal properly made to the Board to open a second comment period, but solely about the identity of the decision-maker and the process and authority for their decision. An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the confusion of substantive and procedural issues, and the erroneous assumption that a good-faith belief in the merits of the outcome is sufficient to justify any defects in the process by which that outcome was or is reached. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > Dear Edward, > > The decision to extend the comment period was taken with the agreement of > our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the Office of the General > Counsel since you believe this issue to be primarily about legal authority. > > I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the provision of > more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the > stated needs of the community. > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to the Board for a > second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost infinite > number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to which member of staff had > this authority, and on what basis. Could you please send me the URL of the > minutes of the Board decision delegating to a member of the staff the > authority to overrule the decision of the Board setting the comment period > at 60 days, or of the provision of the Bylaws you believe gives that member > of the staff the authority to overrule such a Board decision? > > Sincerely, > > Edward Hasbrouck > > On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell > <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > > > Dear Edward, > > > > The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment period > > has been extended by staff because translations of the proposed bylaws > > were finalised too late to allow non-English language users to > > participate fully in the consultation. The translated versions will be > > posted this week in five other languages, and a further two months of > > consultation time allowed to ensure everyone has the same chance to take > > part. > > > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > > > > > On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > > > According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm > > > > "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed > > bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to > > allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their > > views." > > > > The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8 > > > > "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the > > possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional > > Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public > > comment:..." > > > > I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment > > period, or delegating authority to do so. > > > > Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] "Hello World" from ICANN
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

That still leaves many questions unanswered about the process: "ICANN's New Commitment to Transparency Arrives Via Secret Process" http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/30/165214 On 30 Sep 2009 at 18:03, "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr>> wrote: > Rod Beckstrom made quite a long comment on the ICANN's website about > Affirmation of Commitments > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09- en.htm#resolution ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

US Government and ICANN
by Glenn McKnight Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113338698 US to share Internet review amid worldwide growth by The Associated Press text sizeA <javascript:%20void();>A <javascript:%20void();>A<javascript:%20void();> NEW YORK* September 30, 2009, 11:20 am ET* As Internet use expands worldwide, the United States said Wednesday it will give other governments and the private sector a greater oversight role in an organization whose decisions affect how computers relay traffic such as e-mail and Twitter posts. The move comes after European regulators and other critics have said the U.S. government could wield too much influence over a system used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Those critics have complained, among other things, about the slow rollout of Internet addresses in languages other than English. However, the U.S. government stopped short Wednesday of cutting its ties completely with the Internet organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. The government agreed instead to establish advisory panels made up of government and private-sector representatives around the world. The panels will review how well ICANN decisions are made openly, reflect the public interest, ensure stability and promote competition for domain names, which are the monikers ending in ".com" and other suffixes. ICANN decisions could influence what domain names are available, what languages they are in and how much they cost. "The Internet is on a long-term arch from being 100 percent American to being 100 percent global," said Rod Beckstrom, the former U.S. cybersecurity chief who joined ICANN as chief executive in July. "This is a significant step along that arch to becoming more global." The U.S. Commerce Department has a guaranteed seat on only one of those panels, with the remaining representatives to be picked by leaders from ICANN and its advisory committee of government officials. But the panels' recommendations won't be binding on ICANN. And Commerce retains oversight through a separate contract for ICANN to handle the nuts-and-bolts of domain name administration. That contract runs through 2011; the new one taking effect Thursday covers ICANN's broader role in setting guidelines and policies. ICANN also agreed to remain a nonprofit headquartered in the United States — it's based in Marina del Rey, Calif. — with offices around the world. Beckstrom said some critics abroad might take that to mean Internet governance still isn't truly global, but the arrangement should ultimately bolster ICANN's standing internationally. "The U.S. government is saying, `OK, you have become a multistakeholder body. Congratulations. Now on to the next set of challenges,'" Beckstrom said. Although the United States will be sharing oversight on these review panels, Commerce officials expect to be more active than before. In the past, the U.S. rarely exercised its veto power over ICANN decisions, and it didn't conduct the formal, public reviews envisioned by the new agreement. "In the early years we were focused on building ICANN as an institution," Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant commerce secretary for communications and information, said in an interview. "We now are about to turn our attention to focusing on ICANN's performance." ICANN has had oversight over domain names under a series of loose agreements with the U.S. government, which funded much of the Internet's development. The latest was expiring Wednesday. Many critics of ICANN and its U.S. oversight, including the European Union's Internet chief, Viviane Reding, saw the expiration as an opportunity to revamp Internet governance. Under the compromise in the new agreement, the review panels are to issue reports every three or four years. Their makeup will largely fall on ICANN's chief executive, an American; its chairman, who is from New Zealand; and the chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, currently a Latvian. Reding praised the new framework in a statement, and said the governments that now have more of a say in ICANN should take advantage of the opportunity. In the coming months ICANN hopes to revamp procedures for adding domain name suffixes, which likely would spawn hundreds or thousands of new Internet addresses. A launch has been delayed because of objections over such issues as whether trademark owners could wind up having to buy thousands of new domain names simply to protect their intellectual-property rights. ICANN also is close to allowing entire Internet addresses to be in languages other than English for the first time, potentially easing the way online for people who now must type English characters to reach Web sites in their tongues. ICANN officials say they've needed time to come up with ways to reduce fraud and fairly assign new suffixes in other languages. ——— On the Net: New agreement: http://bit.ly/1pbyin -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views." The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8 "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public comment:..." I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment period, or delegating authority to do so. Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote? Many thanks, Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

Comment period on "accountability" bylaws change re-opened
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

The comment period on the proposed accountability (not) bylaw revisions, which had closed on Friday with the submitted comments unanimously opposing the proposal, was re-opened today. Announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm My comments: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/28/2231236 Edward Hasbrouck http://hasbrouck.org/icann

2 1

Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html Consumer Fraud Two people in ALAC are pushing to create a Consumer constituency within the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, nothing in ICANN is simple or straightforward. The Board should not recognize a Consumer Constituency now. There are four reasons why the Board must wait until next year before even considering it. 1. The proposed consumer constituency is empty. It has no demonstrable support or official participation from any major consumer organization. When a petition to form it was filed in February, the proposer, Beau Brendler, claimed the support of Consumers Union, Consumers International, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, and the Australian Consumers Consumer Action Network. But none of these groups filed comments in favor of the petition. And none of them are members now. In fact no consumer organizations filed supporting comments! The only public comment that supported the petition was a business group, the trademark lobbyist association AIM. The proposal for a Consumer Constituency is basically a two person show. Its only backers are Beau Brendler and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, both of whom were appointed (not elected) to ALAC and would like to extend ALAC's remit into the GNSO. Mr. Brendler was employed by the Consumers Union in the U.S. for a while, but the CU was so uninterested in his involvement in ICANN that it laid him off this summer. Mr. Brendler currently does not speak for any consumer organization.. Langdon-Orr claims to speak for an ACCAN – but the ACCAN has nothing about this on its web site and did not file comments in favor of the petition. The simple fact is that this constituency has nothing in it. 2. The move divides and fragments consumer advocacy within ICANN. At this time, there are more active consumer protection advocates in the existing Noncommercial Users Constituency than there are in this proposed new constituency. Consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen, Free Press and EPIC are currently members of NCUC; moreover, these groups are members of Consumers International and Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and further linked to them via the OECD civil society advisory council. All of them would be happy to work with new consumer organizations in the flexible, integrated Stakeholder Group structure proposed by the NCUC. But a new constituency under the current charter would create a separate organization, run by Brendler, and so fragment the consumer organizations involved in ICANN. (Fragmentation and division is really the object of this proposal, as explained below.) The charter imposed on the Noncommercial stakeholders by ICANN means that creating a new constituency in the GNSO is a zero-sum game: it takes representation away from one group to and gives it to another. So if this “consumer constituency” is created it means that all existing consumer organizations involved in NCUC get less influence. 3. The most serious problem with this proposal is that it makes it impossible to come to a consensual agreement on the future Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter. If a new constituency is created, it will be created under the terms and conditions of an interim, temporary charter. That charter was imposed on noncommercial stakeholders and is based on a model of fragmenting civil society into separate constituencies which must always fight with each other over how votes are apportioned. That model was decisively rejected by civil society and constitutes a totally unacceptable way to achieve the goals of the GNSO reforms. Several Board members have questioned it and insisted that it be reviewed after a year. The disagreement over the charter has been recognized by the Board and needs to be negotiated and resolved consensually. But if a new constituency is created now, it would have the effect of making the illegitimate charter a fait accompli, by locking it into place. That is why Brendler and Langdon-Orr are trying to push the Board into recognizing this fake constituency now, before the issue of the charter is settled. That way they won’t have to negotiate in good faith regarding the If their actions have to obtain support and consensus from the broader noncommercial community, they know they will be dead in the water. 4. It makes no sense to rigidly separate “consumer” issues from other noncommercial concerns. Consumer advocacy in communications policy often revolves around economic issues, such as prices, fraud, unfair contracts and business practices – but those concerns are often closely linked to concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. The constituency model forces noncommercial groups into rigidly separate boxes where they discuss issues in isolation from the other perspectives. It is a model that has only one aim: to divide and conquer. That explains why the trademark groups, who are resentful over the redistribution of votes on the GNSO Council, are supporting this Consumer constituency and none of the noncommercial groups are. As we speak, ICANN staff and Langdon-Orr are orchestrating a vote by the ALAC to support the creation of a consumer constituency. She is not telling the At Large members that she is a very interested party in this decision. She is hoping that they will fall prey to the simplistic appeal of being pro-consumer. It is ironic, but very revealing of ICANN politics, that members of ICANN’s policy staff are supporting the creation of a Consumer Constituency, a proposal which did not receive one supportive comment from any consumer organization in the world, but are fighting tooth and nail to implement a NCSG charter that nearly 100 noncommercial organizations opposed. Let’s hope that the Board and new CEO can see through this ploy and respect the request of the noncommercial constituency to wait until the charter issue is resolved before forming any new entities.

5 6

NTIA & State Department Briefing on ICANN
by Danny Younger Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee invites you to attend a briefing on "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance" Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:45 am - 1:30 pm, Luncheon Briefing and Q&A U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) Please RSVP to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org. Save the date for an important briefing, "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance." The briefing will feature the top government officials responsible for managing the relationship between the U.S. and ICANN, the non-profit body that manages the Internet's domain name system, including IP address space allocation. Presenters will represent the NTIA within the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State respectively. We will include a robust question and answer session as part of the discussion. The briefing is incredibly timely as the current agreement, the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), between the U.S. government and ICANN will expire the day before this briefing on September 30, 2009. There may or may not be a successor agreement to the JPA in place on October 1. Regardless, the U.S. government representatives will discuss the future of Internet addressing and domain name management with or with such an agreement. It promises to be interesting. The presenters will be posted at NetCaucus.org shortly. What: Luncheon Briefing and Q&A (Lunch will be served; this is a widely attended event) Where: U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) When: Thursday, October 1, 2009, from 11:45 am to 1:30 pm RSVP: Please send RSVPs to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org or via phone to 202-638-4370. Please send RSVPs to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org. For more information visit www.netcaucus.org or contact Cat Matsuda at 202-638-4370 for more details. This widely attended educational briefing is hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (ICAC), part of a 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. Congressional staff and Members of the press welcome. The ICAC is a private sector organization comprised of public interest groups, trade associations, non-profits, and corporations. More information on the ICAC is available at www.netcaucus.org.

2 1

Failure to implement Bylaws
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

ICANN has requested comments by tomorrow, 25 September 2009, on proposed revisions to the ICANN Bylaws for "Independent Review" of ICANN decisions: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm The fundamental problem with ICANN's current Bylaws for independent review is that those bylaws have never been properly implemented, and that -- despite multiple requests for independent review of ICANN decisions -- no independent review comporting with either the present or the previous independent review Bylaws has ever been conducted. (According to a cursory statement on the ICMRegistry.Com Web site, some sort of "hearing" is being conducted in Washington this week in response to ICM Registry's request for independent review of an ICANN decision. However, whatever is happening in that matter is not in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws on independent review. First, the proceedings are not being conducted with the maximum extent feasible of transparency, as required by the Bylaws. Second, the independent review provider and its procedures were not determined by ICANN in accordance with the procedural rules of ICANN's bylaws for such policy decisions. Instead, ICANN appears to have chosen the independent review provider and allowed it to determine procedures -- which procedures themselves do not comport with ICANN's Bylaws on transparency -- through completely improper secret, ex parte negotiations with the potential independent review provider while independent review requests with other parties were already pending.) Changing the bylaws on independent review will accomplish nothing unless those bylaws are actually implemented (in accordance with, inter alia, the other provisions of the Bylaws with respect to policy development and decision-making procedures and transparency). ICANN has done nothing to give reason for any confidence whatsoever that ICANN will actually implement any accountability mechanisms, current or revised. As I have noted repeatedly in previous comments to ICANN, ICANN has failed to implement any of the three accountability mechanisms required by its current Bylaws. ICANN's Board of Directors has never held a publicly disclosed vote to appoint or reappoint an Ombudsman. The Reconsideration Committee of the Board of Directors has made decisions which, by its own declaration, were based on matters not permitted to be a basis for such decisions. And ICANN has never conducted a policy development process to designate an independent review provider or develop or approve procedures for independent review, just as it never appointed the members of the independent review body provided for by its previous Bylaws. (I also note that the ICANN's request for comments is materially false and misleading in its claim that, "ICANN has an Independent Review Process in place, as established at Article IV, Section 3 (1) of the bylaws". ICANN does not, in fact, have any process in place that has been established in accordance with ICANN's accountability and transparency Bylaws.) ICANN has knowingly and wilfully persisted in this failure, in flagrant violation of its own Bylaws. Members of ICANN's Board of Directors have tolerated this ongoing and flagrant violation of the Bylaws. Given ICANN's failure to establish any other means of accountability, the only remaining mechanisms for calling ICANN to account are for the United States Department of Commerce to revoke its contracts with ICANN for breach of contract (in that ICANN has made contractual commitments to the DOC to observe its Bylaws on accountability), and for the State of California to revoke ICANN's corporate charter for persistent failure to operate in accordance with its Bylaws, as required by that charter. Requests for independent review made under both the previous and present independent review Bylaws remain pending and have not been acted on by ICANN. The proposed revised independent review Bylaws are silent on what action, if any, will ever be taken on these outstanding requests. Rather than revise the independent review Bylaws yet again, ICANN should implement its existing Bylaws on accountability, including independent review, by (1) appointing an Ombudsman, (2)compelling the Reconsideration Committee to act in accordance with the Bylaws in new cases and to properly reconsider those cases previous decided on impermissible grounds, and (3) designating an Independent Review Provider, developing procedures for independent review, and considering the backlog of outstanding requests for independent review, all in accordance with the procedural rules in the Bylaws for such decisions and actions, and the general mandate of the Bylaws for the maximum extent feasible of transparency in the operations of ICANN and its subsidiary bodies. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck edward(a)hasbrouck.org http://hasbrouck.org/icann

1 0

Looks like the JPA will expire next week
by Bob Bruen Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

The Economist is reporting that ICANN will not have the JPA renewed. A 4 page letter has been signed (affirmation of commitments). There is some international oversight committee going in place, with four panels and the US will have reps on only one. ICANN has said nothing about this and there is no word yet on who in the US government sign the letter. http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 -bob

1 0

Consumer Constituency details and documents
by Beau Brendler Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

I appreciate the earlier questions raised by Michael Maranda, and this is partially in response. I hope the attachments get through, as my mailer often seems to choke when posting to this list. I made a separate post similar to this one to the internal ALAC list, so you can delete this one and you have my apologies for the double post. Here are the actual consumer constituency documents, to help take the mystery out of this. The following people have expressed interest to me about being part of the Consumers Constituency. Whether they are still interested after all this, I cannot tell you, but I am in the process of getting in touch with them. Holly Raiche, ACCAN of Australia Gareth Shearman and his wife and their local consumer org Rudi VanSnick and the users org he is affiliated with, which claims 10,000 members Breda Kutin of the national consumers organization of Slovenia (which, despite the country's size, is one of the most active in Europe) CADNA (they were interested early on, but I was hesitant, given that they are funded by and are a lobby group for corporate IP interests -- however, in the revised charter, they might meet the qualifications, but I would put their request for membership up to a vote). We are seeking the participation of two other consumer groups within the at-large, KEPKA from Greece, and the national consumer organization representing Jamaica, neither of which to my knowledge have been particularly active in at-large matters at all. There are other people on the record in the NCUC as being in support of the consumer constituency. I won't name them here. The original document written back in February, when I was still employed by Consumers Union, implied that we had the support of organizations like the TACD and others. We do not, and Consumers Union is unlikely to want to get involved -- their entire telecom staff has either left or been laid off because of their shift in focus to health care. I should state unequivocally and for the record that there is no ICANN funding being provided for this group, or to me or anyone else. We have had a good deal of help from staff, primarily in writing the charter (and updating the charter) to conform with the events of the last year. However, anything in these documents that bears the slightest controversy, or opinion, or anything else, was written by me, with a few contributions by Holly. Staff did not write these documents. If ICANN staff is saying anything to the contrary, I haven't heard it, but then again, I have been incredibly busy in my personal life and have not paid attention. What was the purpose for creating this constituency? Exactly what is said in these documents, no more, no less. No agenda other than providing a voice for consumer >organizations< in the GNSO [hence the limiting language: "The major areas of consumer interest related to the Internet pertain to transactions of some kind, buying and selling; therefore, issues such as fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, network neutrality, privacy, WHOIS, and new gTLDs are of major consumer concern. "]. And if we can come to the determination that users are better served in the GNSO by withdrawing this petition and clubbing in with the NCSG, well, hey, I'd be for it if everyone else I mentioned agrees. Here it is in print: "The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the safety and stability of the Internet at the juncture where they fall into the remit of ICANN. The major areas of consumer interest related to the Internet pertain to transactions of some kind, buying and selling; therefore, issues such as fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, network neutrality, privacy, WHOIS, and new gTLDs are of major consumer concern. While “cybercrime” issues do not directly fall within ICANN’s remit, none of this activity is possible without using the DNS for abusive and fraudulent activity. Thus, the focus of the Consumers Constituency will be to ensure that consumers’ safety, security and stability concerns regarding the DNS are adequately represented within ICANN policy development."

1 0