DNSO Archives: [ga-icann]

Of course, in addition to the Independent Review Policy, ICANN already has in existence a reconsideration policy, under which members of the ICANN community affected by actions of the ICANN staff or Board can seek reconsideration of those actions by the Board. Also, many of the contracts and other agreements with domain name registries and registrars contain provisions paralleling protections in ICANN's bylaws concerning open and transparent policymaking, fostering of competition, and prohibitions against arbitrary or unjustifiable action. They also typically include arbitration provisions, which give the parties contracting with ICANN access to a neutral decisionmaker to resolve questions under these provisions.

That's great that the Registrars have this, but Stuart Lynn says that the ICANN Staff and BoD doesn't have the time or inclination to handle complaints from consumers / domain name registrants who feel they have been adversely affected by ICANN Accredited Registrars. So who does?

Task 4: Collaborate with the Department to continue to complete development of a proposed enhanced architecture for root server security, and the development of the following documentation to be used in connection with testing and implementation of the enhanced root-server system architecture:

a. A written description of the enhanced architecture incorporating a dedicated primary root server;

b. A procedural plan for transition to the enhanced architecture;

c. An implementation schedule for transition to the enhanced architecture;

d. Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing, root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service; and

e. An agreement between ICANN and root-server operators that formalizes stable, secure, and professional operation of the root-servers in accordance with the enhanced architecture.

Where does it say there that Root Operators mean just the "One true Authoritative Root"?

You gotta love this status report . . .

Task 6: ICANN will continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with the organizations operating country-code top level domains that cover the delegation and redelegation issues; allocation of global and local policy-formulation responsibility; and the relationships among ccTLD operators and the relevant government or public authority.

Status of progress on task 6: These discussions have continued with representatives of the ccTLD community. The requirements for the forms of agreements have been better identified, and this should lead to the formalization of some agreements in the near future. In addition, ICANN has begun discussions with individual ccTLDs that seem likely to lead to agreements in the next few months. At the most recent ICANN public meeting, ICANN's CEO committed to developing the capacity to complete at least five such agreements per month. The recent hiring of a Counsel for International Affairs and a ccTLD Liaison are significant steps in this direction.

Thus, efforts to complete this task are ongoing, with significant progress expected in the coming months.

Where does it say in the report to the DoC that the talks with the ccTLDs took a pretty dramatic turn for the worse when the ccTLD Constituency withdrew from the DNSO? In a progress report both negative and positive progress is to be reported. ICANN only includes the positive in their report. An intentional Spin?

Status of progress on task 7: Implementation of this task is well under way.

For nearly the entire time since it was formed, ICANN has devoted a significant part of its activities to the consideration of the establishment of new generic TLDs. At the ICANN meeting in Berlin in May 1999, ICANN's Board referred the issue of new TLDs to the (then newly formed) Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO). In response to this referral, in June 1999 the DNSO Names Council (which manages the process for development of policy recommendations within the DNSO) created a group, known as Working Group C, to study the issues raised by the introduction of new TLDs. After nine months of extensive discussions and review of several position papers, Working Group C submitted its report to the DNSO Names Council on March 21, 2000, recommending introduction of a limited number of TLDs, and posted the report for public comment. Public comments were solicited and received through ICANN's web-based comment forum and via e-mail to the dnso.org site.

The Names Council discussed the report and comments at a telephone conference held on April 18, 2000. At that meeting, the Names Council adopted the following statement, by a vote of 16-0 (two members were absent):

The Names Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole.

The DNSO recommendation continued:

We recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction.

On July 16, 2000, after considering well over 1000 public comments, the ICANN Board adopted the DNSO recommendations and authorized the ICANN President to formally call for proposals to operate or sponsor new TLDs.

On 15 August 2000, ICANN posted a public call for applications on its web site and broadly announced the availability of the application materials. At the same time, ICANN published detailed criteria for the consideration any applications received. In response to the call, forty-four completed applications were received.

Once these applications were submitted, they were posted on ICANN's web site for public comment. Over 4000 comments were received; all appeared on ICANN's web site. ICANN also assembled a team of technical, financial, and legal experts to review and evaluate the applications, which issued a 326-page evaluation report on the applications. Additional public comments were received on this report, both on a web-based forum established by ICANN for this purpose (over 1000 comments received) and at an all-day public forum held in Marina del Rey, California, USA on 15 November 2000.

Yet when you go into those links and read what the public said, there is virtually NO evidence of support for the 7 TLDs they chose. But there is an overwhelming amount of public comment in favor of IOD and dot web and that ICANN not duplicate dot biz. So one can only assume that ICANN does not actually read the public comments or it just ignores whatever it doesn't want to hear and proceeds with their plans regardless of the public comments made.

During that period, ICANN has

created an At Large Membership Study Committee with the objective of generating a consensus solution to the issue of general Internet
user participation and involvement in ICANN;

revised its budget process to enhance broad participation and transparency.

Neither of which have promoted broad participation, a bottom up consensus on it's decisions and policy-making, or any such transparency. Users and Domain Name Owners still have no representation and the BoD has held up the elections of the Board members it was supposed to have.

[ga-icann]

[ga-icann] The MOU & Status Report