Draft report on ICANN Accountability and Transparency
Hello everyone, On Thursday ICANN released a draft report on its accountability and transparency, to be found at this link: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-proposed-recommendations-20... I urge NARALO members to have a look at this. To me, one of At-Large's most important roles is keeping ICANN open and accessible -- as it is (IMO) it is already far too much in appearance and in action like an industry association for registrars and registries. So a proper evaluation of this report is one of At-Large's -- and thus one of our -- more important functions. It is likely that At-Large and ALAC will be responding to this report and NARALO needs to hear the perspective of its members -- both ALSs and unaffiliated -- on the report's findings. Thanks! - Evan
Thanks for posting. Marc. On Nov 7, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
On Thursday ICANN released a draft report on its accountability and transparency, to be found at this link: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-proposed-recommendations-20...
I urge NARALO members to have a look at this. To me, one of At-Large's most important roles is keeping ICANN open and accessible -- as it is (IMO) it is already far too much in appearance and in action like an industry association for registrars and registries. So a proper evaluation of this report is one of At-Large's -- and thus one of our -- more important functions.
It is likely that At-Large and ALAC will be responding to this report and NARALO needs to hear the perspective of its members -- both ALSs and unaffiliated -- on the report's findings.
Thanks!
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Thank you for bringing attention to this -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:11 AM To: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Draft report on ICANN Accountability and Transparency
Hello everyone,
On Thursday ICANN released a draft report on its accountability and transparency, to be found at this link: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-proposed-recommendations-20...
I urge NARALO members to have a look at this. To me, one of At-Large's most important roles is keeping ICANN open and accessible -- as it is (IMO) it is already far too much in appearance and in action like an industry association for registrars and registries. So a proper evaluation of this report is one of At-Large's -- and thus one of our -- more important functions.
It is likely that At-Large and ALAC will be responding to this report and NARALO needs to hear the perspective of its members -- both ALSs and unaffiliated -- on the report's findings.
Thanks!
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Evan, Colleagues, One issue I'd like raised is the formal process for selection, as there appears to be two processes -- one prior to the selection of the ATRT volunteers as a whole, involving a disclosed process, and another subsequent to the selection of the ATRT volunteers as a whole, which does not relate to or depend upon the prior process. Une question que j'aimerais soulevé est le processus formel de sélection, comme il semble y avoir deux processus - l'un avant la sélection des membres ATRT dans son ensemble, impliquant un procédé décrit, et l'autre postérieure à la sélection des ATRT membres dans son ensemble, qui ne se rapportent pas à ou dépendent du processus avant. Una pregunta que se plantea es el proceso de selección formal, como parece que hay dos procesos - uno antes de la selección de los miembros de ATRT en su conjunto, que incluya un método descrito, y el otro tras la selección de ATRT miembros en su conjunto, que no se relacionan o dependen del proceso de antes. Eric
Hi Eric, On 7 November 2010 09:55, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
One issue I'd like raised is the formal process for selection, as there appears to be two processes -- one prior to the selection of the ATRT volunteers as a whole, involving a disclosed process, and another subsequent to the selection of the ATRT volunteers as a whole, which does not relate to or depend upon the prior process.
You're welcome to raise the issue and I look forward to ensuing discussion. Frankly, I'm concerned about the active effort to minimize At-Large participation within the ATRT, even in the "open" preliminary process. But that's not going to be that useful in the public comment process in which we need to respond to the substance of the report. For example, I would call NARALO members' attention to: - the report's failure (or refusal) to distinguish between vested-interest stakeholders and public-interest ones - why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only reference to ALAC is historical) - Evan
On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only reference to ALAC is historical)
I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take At-Large seriously yet. Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak without fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one of the reasons a large part of my interest statement concerned working toward At-Large by-law parity with the GAC. Until such time as At-Large achieves that and demonstrates the public interest work they have done, it will be hard to get the recognition, that the role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN organizational architecture. At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's job as not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a virtual council member, including as a chair of a GNSO WG, has gone a long way to increasing ALAC visibility. As he is a Nomcom appointee, though, it did less for showing that the RALOs and the ALS's were ready for prime time influence yet. I also do not know to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been active in ccNSO and ASO issues. Might also be useful to start putting out At-Large/ALAC principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC. As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the GAC, but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you get the by-laws recognition or show your influence? I think the by-laws parity should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority with that view. I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation to the Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places. a.
Great to see discussion on this issue getting going on Regional lists thanks keep it up and as part of the ATRT I look forward to the outcomes... Just want to remind you all that this initial ATRT was highly time compressed by dates set and NOT negotiable from when the AoC was signed, future ATRT's would and should be able to do a whole lot more ( and many of us wished we had had the time ans support to do so) BUT that said what we *had to address* this time was specific to Section 9 from the AoC (copy inserted below) and therefore had to address specific matters regarding ICANN BOD, GAC and their relationship etc., :- 9. Recognizing that ICANN will evolve and adapt to fulfill its limited, but important technical mission of coordinating the DNS, ICANN further commits to take the following specific actions together with ongoing commitment reviews **specified below: 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS; (c) continually assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof); (d) continually assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community; and (e) assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. ICANN will organize a review of its execution of the above commitments no less frequently than every three years, with the first such review concluding no later than December 31, 2010. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. Each of the foregoing reviews shall consider the extent to which the assessments and actions undertaken by ICANN have been successful in ensuring that ICANN is acting transparently, is accountable for its decision-making, and acts in the public interest. Integral to the foregoing reviews will be assessments of the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented the recommendations arising out of the other commitment reviews enumerated below. The 4 WT's created in the ATRT to address our work plans did therefore focus more narrowly than many of us originaly suggested or desired, but had to keep to a non negotiable end date, and of course our this was effected by several delays in some perts of our work for a variety of reason in the begining of the process; Yet being able to have the Berkman study done to address some of the matters the ATRT -WT's did not have the time or resources to do, has indeed been a boon complementary to our work indeed, they whilst maintaining their independence, yet effectively became an Ex-Officio part of the ATRT's activities, and in my view were a very productive and valuable part of our outcomes. I trust that all of At-Large appreciates that and our ability to ensure it was done. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 8 November 2010 02:53, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only reference to ALAC is historical)
I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take At-Large seriously yet.
Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak without fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one of the reasons a large part of my interest statement concerned working toward At-Large by-law parity with the GAC. Until such time as At-Large achieves that and demonstrates the public interest work they have done, it will be hard to get the recognition, that the role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN organizational architecture.
At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's job as not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a virtual council member, including as a chair of a GNSO WG, has gone a long way to increasing ALAC visibility. As he is a Nomcom appointee, though, it did less for showing that the RALOs and the ALS's were ready for prime time influence yet. I also do not know to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been active in ccNSO and ASO issues. Might also be useful to start putting out At-Large/ALAC principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC.
As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the GAC, but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you get the by-laws recognition or show your influence? I think the by-laws parity should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority with that view.
I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation to the Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places.
a. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Avri, thanks for the very kind words. It is worth noting that even with the Bylaw status that the GAC has, the ATRT report makes it clear that the GAC too has had problems with having that status honored. It may be that the optimal way to address the situation would be to have Bylaw recognition and thus have that put pressure on the ALAC and At-Large to deliver. But, as you imply, there is probably not a majority of Board members who would take that path at this moment. Hopefully, with the combination of the new Director to be seated and the increasing maturity of the ALAC/At-Large work product, At-Large will be taken more seriously and we will see a continued increase in the respect that it deserves as a prime ICANN guardian of the public interest. Alan At 07/11/2010 10:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 7 Nov 2010, at 10:35, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- why the report deals extensively with improving the relationship of the Board and the GAC but does not mention "At-Large" once (and its only reference to ALAC is historical)
I think this is because the ICANN community has not learned to take At-Large seriously yet.
Now, that the petition drive is over in NARALO, and I can speak without fear of being accused of campaigning in NARALO, that is one of the reasons a large part of my interest statement concerned working toward At-Large by-law parity with the GAC. Until such time as At-Large achieves that and demonstrates the public interest work they have done, it will be hard to get the recognition, that the role of At-Large/ALAC should have in the ICANN organizational architecture.
At-Large/ALAC has achieved a good start with its use of the by-laws capability of introducing issue report requests in GNSO. And Alan's job as not only a liaison to the GNSO council, but often as a virtual council member, including as a chair of a GNSO WG, has gone a long way to increasing ALAC visibility. As he is a Nomcom appointee, though, it did less for showing that the RALOs and the ALS's were ready for prime time influence yet. I also do not know to what extent ALAC/At-Large has been active in ccNSO and ASO issues. Might also be useful to start putting out At-Large/ALAC principles on issues to match those put out by the GAC.
As I say, I think that ALAC deserves to be at the same level as the GAC, but there is a chicken and egg issue - which comes first, you get the by-laws recognition or show your influence? I think the by-laws parity should happen ASAP, but I am sure I am in a minority with that view.
I do agree that it might be worth commenting on this with relation to the Berkman report, which I think provides a good start in many places.
a. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Evan, I appreciate your interest in those things that minimize At-Large participation. This is in keeping with the multi-stakeholder model, which encourages interest advocacy and discourages stability and cooperation. The the ATRT selection process(es) relates to the ATRT itself, and not to any particular advocacy interest, particularly those so marginal as to play little or no role in the ATRT itself. And as you observe, process is not substance, though on occasion there is some relationship between them. I'll raise the issue myself. Eric
Hi, I see ICANN has not yet made a statement on this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1 list of seized sites http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domai... quote" "My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. "I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN," he explained." Where is the due process? I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and I missed it.
There are some things here that don't wash, keep in mind they're from a statement by the Torrent owner. I don't believe for a second Godaddy "had no idea" and "do not understand the situation" Also to say "it was totally from ICANN" is odd because ICANN has made it abundantly clear they're not in the business of enforcing U.S. laws or even holding Registrars accountable for their contracted obligation to obey the law and to not sell domains used for illegal activity. His quote implies ICANN can change records at Godaddy without Godaddy knowing. Not possible. If their was in fact no court order it explodes the myth that Registrars need court orders to suspend domains, but that's not what the article says. It says: "DHS has...executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names." There is your due process, or the beginning of it. Also, note that this was driven by Customs, so likely the domains were directly involved in selling/importing counterfeits destined for the United States. To conduct this seizure they'd go to Godaddy, not ICANN. Possibly the Torrent owner feels that ICANN should be protecting his rights and is blaming them for not. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jean Armour Polly" <mom@netmom.com> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 10:25 AM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Homeland Security seizes Domain Names
Hi, I see ICANN has not yet made a statement on this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1 list of seized sites http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domai... quote" "My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.
"I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN," he explained."
Where is the due process?
I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed and I missed it. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Hi, apparently it's snagged at the .com root, see http://nenolod.net/did-icann-really-seize-torrent-finder-com-or-was-it-veris... although I didn't verify these traces myself. I just think it is surprising that ICANN has no comment yet, because it seems to add fuel to the arguments that the US Government has too much control over the global Internet. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the arguments, I'm just saying that we have heard this call for an alternate model or even an alternate DNS for many years and we are likely going to see a resurgence after this event, and I hope ICANN releases a statement. Besides the NYT article, here are sample articles right now: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Seizure-of-Torrent-Search-Site-s-Domain-Name-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/jack_mcdowell/us-shuts-down-web-sites-i... PS Does anyone remember the late Jon Postel's one-man redirect of the root in 1998? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel#The_US_takeover_of_the_DNS_Root_Auth...
That would make more sense that it happened at the registry level -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jean Armour Polly" <mom@netmom.com> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 1:14 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Homeland Security seizes Domain Names
Hi, apparently it's snagged at the .com root, see http://nenolod.net/did-icann-really-seize-torrent-finder-com-or-was-it-veris... although I didn't verify these traces myself.
I just think it is surprising that ICANN has no comment yet, because it seems to add fuel to the arguments that the US Government has too much control over the global Internet. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with the arguments, I'm just saying that we have heard this call for an alternate model or even an alternate DNS for many years and we are likely going to see a resurgence after this event, and I hope ICANN releases a statement.
Besides the NYT article, here are sample articles right now: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Seizure-of-Torrent-Search-Site-s-Domain-Name-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/jack_mcdowell/us-shuts-down-web-sites-i...
PS Does anyone remember the late Jon Postel's one-man redirect of the root in 1998? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel#The_US_takeover_of_the_DNS_Root_Auth... ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Not directly related, but on the same general topic: http://blog.alex.org.uk/2010/11/26/domain-names-and-criminals/ Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Well, despite rumors of the whole thing being a hoax or stunt the NIPRCC appears to be genuine <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/> and the takedowns legit, but the confusion is understandable - the methods were obscure and devious. The inclusion of two visitor tracking scripts especially raised suspicions. http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recen... ICE did take out some sites in June, but did announce it officially http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1006/100630losangeles.htm and checking one of the officially seized sites http://tvshack.net/ <http://tvshack.net/> reveals a smaller graphic and none of the analytics scripts It does raise some questions 1) Why no confirming PR from ICE? http://www.ice.gov/news/ 2) Why track visitors? 3) Why use third parties and hide behind anonymous whois? 4) Why are the redirected sites not Section 508 compliant? 5) Why do it over Thanksgiving holiday? As the above article notes it will be interesting to see if Afilias registered sites are the next target, and it is evident that COICA is required to similarly block non US registered domains. joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of my questions resolved by the arrival of an ICE press release in my inbox today. The whole thing was timed for "Cyber Monday" I'll forward the release in a separate mail. j On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
Well, despite rumors of the whole thing being a hoax or stunt the NIPRCC appears to be genuine <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/> and the takedowns legit, but the confusion is understandable - the methods were obscure and devious. The inclusion of two visitor tracking scripts especially raised suspicions.
http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recen...
ICE did take out some sites in June, but did announce it officially http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1006/100630losangeles.htm and checking one of the officially seized sites http://tvshack.net/ <http://tvshack.net/> reveals a smaller graphic and none of the analytics scripts
It does raise some questions
1) Why no confirming PR from ICE? http://www.ice.gov/news/
2) Why track visitors?
3) Why use third parties and hide behind anonymous whois?
4) Why are the redirected sites not Section 508 compliant?
5) Why do it over Thanksgiving holiday?
As the above article notes it will be interesting to see if Afilias registered sites are the next target, and it is evident that COICA is required to similarly block non US registered domains.
joly
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe for a second Godaddy "had no idea" and "do not understand the situation"
I do. If you look at the WHOIS info, Godaddy's WHOIS still has the domain's own servers, while Verisign's crsnic.net has SEIZEDSERVERS.COM. That makes it pretty clear they were redirected by Verisign. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
gbruen＠knujon.com -
Jean Armour Polly -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Marc Rotenberg -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight