Digital Rights + Internet Governance + Innovation Policy

Loading...
Home2021-07-11T17:22:19+00:00

7 “Frequently Asked Questions” About ICANN’s Enhancing Accountability Plan that Went Unanswered in ICANN’s FAQ

By |August 25th, 2014|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: , , |

Q1. Why wasn't the community involved in the drafting of the staff plan? Q2.  How does ICANN intend to handle the inherent conflict of interest with developing its own accountability plan? Q3.  Why didn't ICANN invite proposals from the community? Q4.  Why is there no public comment period on staff's plan? Q5. [...]

Aligning ICANN Policy with Privacy Rights of Internet Users – IGF 2014 Workshop Video

By |August 25th, 2014|Categories: Digital Rights, Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , , |

 IP Justice Presents IGF 2014 Workshop #149:  "Aligning ICANN Policy with Privacy Rights of Internet Users"  Day 5 at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey 5 September 2014  ~  11:00 am - 12:30 pm in Istanbul (other time zones) in Venue Workshop Room #6 at Lütfi Kirdar International Convention [...]

Quelle Suprise! ICANN’s Accountability Plan Gives ICANN Board Total Control: ICANN Limits Accountability Improvement Measures to Toothless Self-Policing

By |August 21st, 2014|Categories: Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , |

1. ICANN’s So-Called “Enhancing Accountability” Process After a long wait, ICANN’s senior management finally released its plan for “Enhancing Accountability” at the private California corporation that makes global Internet domain name policy.  Unfortunately, the accountability deficit crisis created by ICANN’s longstanding policy of purely “self-policing” with no meaningful external accountability mechanisms [...]

Accountability in the ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Governance Regime – IGF 2014 Workshop Promo & Video

By |August 21st, 2014|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: , , |

IP Justice Presents IGF 2014 Workshop #23:  "Accountability in the ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Governance Regime"  at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey 3 September 2014  ~  9:00 - 10:30 am in Istanbul (other time zones) in Venue Room #2 at Lütfi Kirdar International Convention and Exhibition Center (ICEC) [...]

A Civil Society Perspective on NETmundial 2014 Final Outcome Document: A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses to Hollywood & Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial Issues

By |April 26th, 2014|Categories: Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , , , , |

What follows are a few 'big picture' thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level committee.  Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement" that we as civil society should be proud [...]

ICANN Expands Trademark Rights & Violates Bottom-Up Policy Process: NCSG Position on ICANN Board-Staff Violation of Corporate Bylaws by Imposing ‘TM+50 Policy’ on GNSO

By |November 7th, 2013|Categories: Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , , |

  NCSG Position on ICANN Board-Staff Violation of Corporate Bylaws by Imposing “TM+50 Policy” on GNSO  7 November 2013   Available as .pdf   At the request of ICANN legal staff as per its Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP), the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) provides this further explanation of our complaint [...]

Noncommercial Users Ask ICANN Board to Review Decision to Expand Trademark Rights in New Domains

By |May 1st, 2013|Categories: Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , , , |

ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has filed a Request for Reconsideration with ICANN's Board of Directors regarding the staff's decision to expand the scope of the trademark claims service beyond that provided by community consensus policy and in contradiction to ICANN Bylaws.

Statement of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on the Trademark Clearinghouse Talks and Staff Strawman Model

By |January 14th, 2013|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , , |

At ICANN’s 45th international meeting in Toronto in October 2012, ICANN’s Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies sent a letter to ICANN to request that additional changes be made to the policies for new top-level domain names. Despite the fact that the current policy had been long finalized via a painstakingly arduous consensus process in which all stakeholders compromised and ultimately reached unanimous agreement, nonetheless the IPC and BC sent a letter to Fadi Chehade, the new CEO, and the ICANN Board of Directors with 8-points for consideration and policy modification. Many of these points were the same requests the intellectual property/ business community has made before. Unfortunately, the key aspects of most of the 8-points sought to re-open previously closed agreements. Further, most of the points proposed policy changes, rather than merely clarifying technical implementation details.

ICANN’s 11th-Hour Domain Name Trademark Policy Negotiations: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly — Dissecting the Strawman

By |November 18th, 2012|Categories: Digital Rights, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , , , |

ICANN organized a meeting on 15-16 November 2012 in Los Angeles, the Trademark Clearinghouse policy negotiations, to consider the 8-point policy requests sent by the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies to the ICANN board and senior staff at the October 2012 Toronto ICANN meeting. I participated in the LA policy meeting on behalf of noncommercial users and below is my personal evaluation of the meeting and initial reactions to the output of the meeting...

Statement of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group on Proposals for Additional Trademark Rights Protection Measures for New Top-Level Domain Names

By |November 1st, 2012|Categories: Digital Rights, Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

* NCSG is concerned by proposals from the IPC and BC to change consensus policy and re-open previously settled policy matters on Rights Protection Mechanisms for new tlds. * The proposal under discussion does not reflect the hard-won balance found in the current consensus policy, nor the traditional limitations that exist in trademark law. * The proposal removes matters from the negotiated RAA and registry agreements into a vague 'backdoor process', and binds ICANN to unlimited compliance obligations. * Both the substance of the proposals and the manner of presenting it directly to ICANN without a proper policy process undermine our shared desire to create a truly multi-equal stakeholder process that honours ICANN's commitment to transparency and accountability.

Go to Top