[At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

Thu Dec 30 16:37:52 UTC 2021

Thanks Evan and I appreciate your opinions on new gTLDs.

But your opinions show the basis of the problem.  The .hiphop TLD does NOT use the ENS or the blockchain.  The NFT that was created is a digital painting of the .hiphop logo which someone from ENS created.

It is a functionless NFT of a work of art.  It does not connect .hiphop to any block chain or alternate root or anything else.

As I said Evan, I am an open book on this one.  If you have any questions, ask them.  But putting aside the whole NFT question, perhaps you may want to focus on the Accountability Mechanisms and ICANN’s retaliation against anyone that wants to use them.  Even if you hate the TLD i am involved with. Even if you hate NFTs or New TLDs in general.  Is it right for ICANN to retaliate when one files a reconsideration request?

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
+1.202.549.5079
Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

________________________________
From: At-Large <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 11:27 AM
To: ICANN At-Large list
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

I am aware of harm to people coming from misuse of blockchain and am deeply suspicious of any organisation using it right now. Anyone interested in this subject is invited to first read this article from Kevin<http://www.domainincite.com/27303-icann-is-blocking-23-gtld-transfers-over-blockchain-fears>. It alludes that there are large issues at play suggesting yet another alt-root attempt, this time involving NFTs.

I am personally not impressed by this charm offensive, nor with attempts to sway opinion in the absence of due process. A proper investigation, should ALAC desire it, should consult multiple parties and I'm sure that the registries Jeff represents will be heard from at the appropriate time.

Since I think that most new gTLDs are a sad sketchy joke anyway, my initial instinct is that the parties all deserve each other and that non-registrant end-users are not impacted by this drama.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56

On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 10:47, Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
All,

I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Please see https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-name-only.

This article covers ICANN’s taking retaliatory action against a company I am involved in for daring to use the Reconsideration Process. We alleged ICANN’s inaction was a violation of the Bylaws (and you can read about that separately).

What does ICANN do? It “pauses” its consideration of what it has failed to act on in retaliation against my company thereby compounding the original issue. In other words, we complained ICANN was moving to slow in our request for the assignment of a TLD Agreement - and that was a violation of the Bylaws. ICANN has responded by stating that it now needs to halt all consideration of the assignment request because we filed the Reconsideration Action in order to investigate the basis of our claims that it was moving too slow.

———————

There will be a follow up post on why our initial request for urgent reconsideration was denied.  In short, ICANN has taken the position that:

A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis.  ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.

B). And ICANN Board Inaction cannot be challenged where the basis for the “Inaction” is ICANN’s failure to pass a Board Resolution. In other words, if you are angry at the Board for not passing a resolution, you cannot file an urgent reconsideration request…..why…..because in order to have an urgent Reconsideration Request, there needs to be an actual Board Resolution. Thus, if the board fails to pass a resolution, by definition, there is no resolution on which to basis the urgent action.

————-

This case also covers ICANN’s misguided fight against the blockchain.  Although the request to assign .hiphop has nothing to do with the blockchain, ICANN has decided (wrongfully) that it does.

——————

If you want to cover any of this in an open session, I am more than happy to discuss.  I believe all of this should be done in the open and if ICANN Org is not going to be completely open and transparent, then there is no reason we cannot be.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
+1.202.549.5079
Http://www.jjnsolutions.com

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20211230/43c17eed/attachment-0001.html>