- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

There is nothing stopping consumer groups from participating in At-Large, and in fact some do. The GNSO has a mandate PURELY on GTLDs and a GNSO Constituency coming into existence presumes that this group wants for focus on GTLD issues (not unreasonable given the likely emergence of many new GTLDs). The difference between At-Large and GNSO is that of focus (All of ICANN vs just GTLDs). Groups may participate in either At-Large or parts of the GNSO depending on their interested and desire for involvement. Alan At 24/09/2009 09:09 AM, Michael Maranda wrote: >It seems to me that a "constituency for consumers" would either fall under >ALAC and would strengthen us, OR if we focused on the organizations that >represent them, those could either be in ALAC or NCUC (i.e. they already >have a place (or choice of places) if they intend to be active). >Is the proposal to establish a third body entirely? if so, that does seem >to water things down for all involved, and risks further confusing potential >participants and even setting us further against each other. > >I'm not averse to protecting our rights as consumers, but I think we ought >to start from a wider frame than consumption. We the people are more >integral than our consuming roles. > >Regards, > >MM > >On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > Bob Bruen wrote: > > > > > I also would caution against trying to censor information just because > > > one does not it or the source. > > > > I wasn't intending to censor. People post links to things of interest > > here all the time, including items that many might not agree with. I > > objected to Danny's reprinting of the whole thing verbatim, giving a > > "you must read this" air to a piece that certainly doesn't deserve that > > level of attention. > > > > > Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still > > > someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a > > > "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed. > > > > Convince me. He was one of the founders of NCUC and must be credited for > > that. But he now comes across as a parent who perceives his child is in > > danger, flailing away with any tactic available -- no matter how crude > > or hurtful or false, oblivious of consequence -- to protect. Every time > > he puts finger to keyboard he discredits himself more (as witness by his > > followup replies to Cheryl). > > > > Trouble is ... the more he flails away, the less people will believe > > that the child deserves protection. In Sydney I was relatively neutral > > about Milton, today it seems to me he's a foil wrapper away from total > > nutbar. And every day that the NCUC of today fails to distance itself > > from his words, it is associated a little bit more with his character. > > At this particular point in time, the NCUC can little afford such damage > > to its credibility. > > > > I care about this only because I don't want to see NCUC to descend into > > irrelevance due to its founder's abandonment of civility. It's not in > > ALAC's tactical interest to have NCUC as an impotent laughing stock. > > > > > It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your > > > friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War. > > > > May be, but I don't consider Milton my enemy. > > The vested interests, domainers, exploiters, phishers, censors and > > overzealous IP interests are (still) my enemies. > > Milton is a distraction, a nuisance. But not more than that. > > > > - Evan > > > > PS: Talking about censorship.... a posting I made on that thread has yet > > to show up on the website.... > > > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

Agreed, I don't think Mr. Mueller is a good source. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed > Consumer Constituency > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Wed, September 23, 2009 5:39 pm > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Danny Younger wrote: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html > > > > Yes, Danny, by all means let's repeat an article so full of invective, > inaccuracies and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that it has the > potential to poison the relationship between ALAC and NCUC for quite a > long time. > > Allow me to remind this list that, at our last regular NARALO meeting > last week, we achieved a consensus to actively oppose the NCUC request > to stall new constituencies. I recall zero dissent in achieving that > consensus. I also do not recall any pressure from Cheryl or Beau to do this. > > I am personally disgusted by the devolution of the NCUC complaint into > petty, nasty attacks on Beau and Cheryl. I am distressed by go-for-broke > tactics that appear to have dispensed with any pretence of rational > debate, resorting to personalizing and vilifying the supporters of what > is, at its core, simply a strong difference in approach. > > Ironically, I see the diatribe having the opposite effect of what was > intended. A casual reader -- let's say an ICANN Board member -- could > easily infer that, given the political tactics demonstrated in Milton's > letter, that NCUC is not competent to fully represent the public > interest within GNSO. Such sentiment, in the appropriate hands, could > easily accelerate the move to dilute NCUC's position by welcoming new > constituencies and the staff charter. > > I will not be contributing any further to this thread, and I urge NARALO > to avoid giving this issue a life of its own. We have too many other > issues which are far worthier of our time. > > - Evan<hr>------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

CADNA calls for federal commission to review ICANN governance/policies
by Danny Younger Sept. 23, 2009

Sept. 23, 2009

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/s… [excerpt] CADNA's Top Ten list: 1. ICANN is a captured regulator: ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which develops ICANN's policy, is aligned with business models such as registrars and registries that stand to profit or lose from ICANN's choices. Counter to what ICANN will attest, they do not fairly and accurately represent the interests and needs of all Internet users. 2. ICANN is not independent: Its Board of Directors is poorly structured, allowing for rulings that align with what the captured policy-making group proposes, and ICANN lacks the internal accountability mechanism found in most private not-for-profit organizations that ensures they are operating honestly. 3. ICANN is not transparent: ICANN refuses to release transcripts of its board meetings, thereby shrouding the rationale behind its policy decisions and avoiding public accountability. 4. ICANN is more interested in making a profit than working for the benefit of Internet users: ICANN's funding structure, which raises revenue through fees on every registered and renewed domain name, creates conflicts of interests and forces ICANN to support policies favoring the sales of domain names. 5. ICANN is not accessible: ICANN lacks an easily understood manual that explains its operations for those that work within it. Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of staffers and volunteers would allow them to better communicate amongst themselves and to be more effective within the parameters of their positions. In addition, there is no means by which the general public -- Internet users -- is informed about ICANN's operations. Such improved accessibility would increase participation by the Internet community and improve feedback. 6. ICANN is failing to address numerous issues corrupting the Internet: ICANN often ignores issues regarding the safety and stability of the Internet, such as the proliferation of cybersquatting, which can enable phishing, malware deposit schemes, and the sale of unwanted counterfeits. ICANN has also largely ignored the problem of inaccurate WHOIS information, which encumbers the identification and prosecution of bad actors. Rather than helping to make the Web more secure, ICANN is increasing the online risks that businesses and consumers face by irresponsibly releasing new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). 7. ICANN's proposed gTLD rollout is poorly conceived: ICANN has not properly vetted this decision in an objective fashion. This rollout expands the size of the Internet exponentially without first performing a sound cost/benefit and security and risk analysis to determine both desirability among and risk to Internet users. 8. ICANN is not looking at itself critically: Former ICANN CEO, Paul Twomey, made it clear at Congressman Boucher's hearing that even with the renewal of the JPA, it would be business as usual for ICANN. Unfortunately, business as usual would do nothing to improve the domain name space. 9. ICANN is risking cybersecurity, national security, and global security: Expanding the number of gTLDs, the latest of a series of risky policies, will make it easier for those who pose threats to national security to conceal their online operations and identities. 10. ICANN's relationship with the US government does not span all relevant agencies: Given the security implications of ICANN's role in the Internet, the Department of Homeland Security should have joint jurisdiction over the JPA and IANA contract with the Department of Commerce.

1 1

NARALO 'Board Member Selection' meeting results posted
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Hello all, I want to thank everyone for an extremely productive meeting on Monday, planned as a single-issue gathering to discover and refine ideas related to the selection of an At-Large representative on the ICANN Board. What was intended as just a place to "brainstorm", in fact resulted in some specific proposals and options, with an unexpectedly high level of consensus for the core process. I have been told that our work has since been discussed and favourably received at the APRALO and ALAC meetings held today. The results of our meeting have been posted in two forms: 1) I have attempted to simplify and explain the proposed NARALO process using a table: https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?draft_procedure_for_appointme… 2) The raw notes/minutes from the meeting are at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?21_09_2009_summary_minutes Please let me know if we have misrepresented either the consensus conclusions or your personal comments. Thanks! - Evan

1 0