ICANN and its Contracted Parties

Elliot Noss, Tim Denton, and Ross Rader from Tucows have published a public discussion draft concerning “ICANN’s role in relation to contracted parties.” In that document, they call for the establishment of a process by which registrars and regist…

Elliot Noss, Tim Denton, and Ross Rader from Tucows have published a public discussion draft concerning “ICANN’s role in relation to contracted parties.” In that document, they call for the establishment of a process by which registrars and registries could resolve commercial disputes arising out of the respective ICANN agreement: We are talking about creating an adjudication process for commercial disputes, and a process of confirmation, referral, amendment, or denial of these adjudications by the Board of ICANN. The document does not push for a “contracted parties SO” separate from the DNSO.

.org: Well done or well meant?

In Germany, there is a saying: “The opposite of ‘well done’ is ‘well meant.'” Applied to dot-org, this means that I get somewhat skeptical when a proposal like GNR’s (which looks technically solid – after all, they do run a registry already) indir…

In Germany, there is a saying: “The opposite of ‘well done’ is ‘well meant.'” Applied to dot-org, this means that I get somewhat skeptical when a proposal like GNR’s (which looks technically solid – after all, they do run a registry already) indirectly promises funding to the NCDNHC, and wants to have that constituency’s leadership on a so-called Steering Committee. In fact, I’m wondering how this mixes with the NCDNHC’s demand to play a more active role in the evaluation of the proposals. Conflicts of interest, anyone?

Note that I don’t have any objections against the travel funding suggested (indeed, that’s an extremely good idea which should be pursued by more of the wealthy players in the ICANN process), or against philantropy in general – but some of this just looks too well-targeted in this particular context.

Writing from the point of view of an individual .org domain name holder, I hope that the board will mostly base its decision on the .org redelegation on the technical merits of the respective proposals (and on business stability), and use the community aspects of proposals only as auxiliary factor in its decision-making.

Bold (and possibly even risky) experiments with TLDs are fine – as long as they happen with new TLDs, and every registrant knows what’s possibly going to happen. With a well-established TLD such as dot-org, there’s considerably less room for experiments.

DotOrg Foundation’s Validation Scheme

I was curious enough about this to finally take the time to thoroughly read that part of the application. If I understand this correctly, “validation” is suggested to be a separate service which could only be purchased by .org registrants. Registr…

I was curious enough about this to finally take the time to thoroughly read that part of the application. If I understand this correctly, “validation” is suggested to be a separate service which could only be purchased by .org registrants. Registrants themselves would make certain statements subject to third-party validation (examples given include category of organization, financial policies and practices, governance structures, and the like). The validation status would be available online, and the organization would have the right to put a “DotORG seal” onto its web page, with a link to validation results. Included with the package would be an SSL server certificate.

Dot-Org Presentations

Bret Fausett is providing coverage of the current .org re-delegation presentations; I’ll drop out of the webcast again in a couple of minutes. If I interpret the webcast correctly, there’s also some professional real-time scribing going on, so we …

Bret Fausett is providing coverage of the current .org re-delegation presentations; I’ll drop out of the webcast again in a couple of minutes. If I interpret the webcast correctly, there’s also some professional real-time scribing going on, so we should see an archive of what’s being said in these presentations in a couple of days (I’m optimistic).

The one presentation which I partially saw and listened to (until the audio feed went away) was the one by DotOrg Foundation. One of their “interesting” elements (and one of the first things mentioned in the presentation) seem to be some kind of Validation services. Quite frankly, I neither understand how these are supposed to work, nor do I understand what they’d mean for simple, individual .org domain name holder like myself. Maybe someone in the know can shed some light on this?

NC meeting notes.

The notes I took during today’s Names Council meeting in Bucharest (which I attended through the realaudio/video feed) are available in the blog items below. If you want to have something which is sorted chronologically (and not blog-wards), and c…

The notes I took during today’s Names Council meeting in Bucharest (which I attended through the realaudio/video feed) are available in the blog items below. If you want to have something which is sorted chronologically (and not blog-wards), and can reasonably be bookmarked, you can go to the Bucharest Protocols version of the notes. Misunderstandings are mine, of course, and I encourage anyone who notices any misleading notes to e-mail me.

NC: dot-org

Harold Feld has introduced this on behalf of NCDNHC. A number of bidders made presentations to NCDNHC. Briefing helpful. But: Concerned that there is need to fully participate in evaluation of applications. Constituency believes to have expertise….

Harold Feld has introduced this on behalf of NCDNHC. A number of bidders made presentations to NCDNHC. Briefing helpful. But: Concerned that there is need to fully participate in evaluation of applications. Constituency believes to have expertise. Board should instruct staff to work closely with team headed by NCDNHC, including volunteers from other constituencies. Portion of funds collected from applicants should be given to NCDNHC, so they can do due diligence and produce input to ICANN board for consideration of applications. Would seek foundation funding to assist in this significant undertaking. Hopes that NC would at least make request to board. Further: Request that board makes .org decision during open telephone conference. Because questions regarding conflict of interests have been raised, this is particularly important. At the very least record meeting, and place recording on web page. Wants stable delegation, avoid law-suits. Last point is adopted by NC.

J Scott Evans (IPC): Experience from new gTLD process, discussion with applicants. NCDNHC could do this too. Doesn’t want NC recommendation. Board has fiduciary duty. No need for special procedure.

Roger Cochetti: Necessary to evaluate ability of applicants to reach out into non-profit sector. If reach-out, may remind them (board? applicants?) about NCDNHC. Even absent such procedures, can remind board of existence of this constituency.

J Scott Evans: Excellent suggestion to remind them. But much different than what Harold has suggested.

M. Cade: Not just non-commercials in .org.

Bruce Tonkin: Asking for public comment more appropriate; .org incredibly diverse.

Harold Feld: 1. JSE: Request grows out of gTLD delegation experience. Treatment of DNSO report by board. Found difference between having consultive relationship and asking staff to work directly work with constituency. Will do their best in the time frame allotted to provide input to decision-making process. In this particular instance: Consistently identified as (“most”) interested constituency, greatest expertise in how non-profits are run. Board should direct staff, so experience can effectively be shared. Money request: Useful that money paid for evaluation should be used by NCDNHC to evaluate aspects within constituency’s expertise. Will enhance process, prevent questions as to the legitimacy of the process.

P. Sheppard is going to remind board of interested constituencies.

NC: Reform Discussion (7) – BC

Marilyn Cade: Extensive consultation. Lateness of delivery of paper makes complete response difficult. Value greatly the fact that board members made themselves available yesterday. Paper departs from whitepaper in key areas. Adjustments can be ma…

Marilyn Cade: Extensive consultation. Lateness of delivery of paper makes complete response difficult. Value greatly the fact that board members made themselves available yesterday. Paper departs from whitepaper in key areas. Adjustments can be made. Framework where details can be worked out. Funding: Businesses represent significant user community in using and buying names. No one is more affected by instability. BC on record: 2/3 of funding from gTLDs, 1/3 from RIRs and ccTLDs. Mission: Policy development. Support language in statement. Oppose outsourcing of ICANN functions. On nominating committee: Concerns about implementation. Support concept for selection of board members. Don’t support nominating committee for SO councils. Could imagine at-large sending reps to gTLD council. Support strongly separate ccSO. Expect ongonig dialogue on matters of mutual interest. Better engage in dialogue than appoint someone. 19 people on nominating committee will have great difficulty. If four unaffiliated persons on NomCom, they should come from At Large. (Consistent with ISPs.) No justification to change of number of board members. Movement forward in electing board members, as opposed to earlier top-down approach. Board authority: Policy-approval, not policy-development. Lead to believe that board agrees on this. Generally: If board doesn’t like policy, pass it back to SO for another attempt. Emergencies: Interim policies. Governmental participation: GAC and rest of ICANN are relatively new at this. Believe that there is better way for consultation than appointing liaisons. Need methodology for bringing issue to GAC, and consult with GAC. Have the right people on both sides for particular issues. Core value: Stability. Private-sector leadership can be successful. Has been remarkably successful.

NC: Reform Discussion (6) – ISPs

Tony Holmes: Will make statement tomorrow. Pleased to see step back from more radical original approach. Many things they don’t like. Prefer different board make-up. Concerns about viability of nominating committee, still have reservations. Board …

Tony Holmes: Will make statement tomorrow. Pleased to see step back from more radical original approach. Many things they don’t like. Prefer different board make-up. Concerns about viability of nominating committee, still have reservations. Board terms. Don’t want nominating committee appointees on SO councils. Would consider one non-voting GAC member on the DNSO (council?). At-large has made considerable progress. If four unaffiliated persons on NomCom, they should come from At Large. One of the largest problems with ICANN: Lack of support. […]

NC: Reform Discussion (5) – IPC

Ellen Shankman: [audio gap] J Scott Evans: Can’t come forward with formal position. Constituency members who looked at material encouraged that board listens to various voices. Glad about evolutionary instead of revolutionary approach. Concern tha…

Ellen Shankman: http://gap J Scott Evans: Can’t come forward with formal position. Constituency members who looked at material encouraged that board listens to various voices. Glad about evolutionary instead of revolutionary approach. Concern that many solutions come at a cost. How exactly should cost be recovered?

%d bloggers like this: