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. [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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) [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
More than 118 human rights and other civil society organizations from across the globe are taking a stand against unchecked communications surveillance, calling for the governments around the world to follow international human rights law and curtail pervasive spying.
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.
At ICANNâ€™s 45th international meeting in Toronto in October 2012, ICANNâ€™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 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...
* 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.