[NA-Discuss] Proposal to Change ICANN Compliance Oversight
gbruen at knujon.com
Thu Jan 29 22:50:25 UTC 2015
Thank you Evan, Glenn and Tom.
Let me be clear, this is ultimately about a structural change from which all parties will benefit. I felt the weight of the recommendation required extensive documentation. Many people here, not just me, have spent countless hours trying to get these issues addressed, so lest any of that be forgotten, it should be part of the record.
What we are observing is the nature of the beast: it is impossible for any entity to self-regulate above its own self-interest. Why do we see the results we see over and over? No other results are possible within the current architecture.
This isn’t just an At-Large issue. I am very aware of domainers, registrars, and registries who feel the process is unfair. I’ve heard their stories and I sympathize. Put this alongside the fact that ICANN does not see itself a regulator and does not want to be. Its staff has plainly stated they don’t know how to conduct investigations or engage in the kind of enforcement that has been asked of it.
What is not plainly written in the memo is an alternate view of the proposal which is that if ICANN considers domain sales its business, let it focus on that. Let it pour all its energy into increasing the domain space and then let an external structure monitor compliance and fairly arbitrate complaints.
From: evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:46 AM
To: Glenn McKnight
Cc: Garth Bruen; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposal to Change ICANN Compliance Oversight
I agree that the issue is important. Thanks to Garth's tireless efforts, NARALO has a history of advancing these issues into ALAC policy positions. In this case, I agree with the substance and analysis but believe that the approach and tactics need some more discussion. I am more interested in an approach that effects change over one designed to score debating points.
I invite NARALO members to comment on this proposal, I will be adding it to the agenda of our next NARALO call, and I will raise the issue at the Singapore meeting.
On 28 January 2015 at 18:47, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com> wrote:
Garth has had a long history in making ICANN accountable and transparent
on the compliance issue and I think NARALO needs to bring this issue
into the policy realm.
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Garth Bruen <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Following a multi-year analysis of the way ICANN handles its compliance
> function and being directly involved in the existing process every level I
> have come to the conclusion that some changes are required if ICANN is to
> actually be accountable and transparent. There are some fundamental
> within the organization which prevent compliance from operating in a truly
> independent fashion which serves all parties equally.
> In short, ICANN compliance has been unable enforce the contract with
> registrars in specific cases and has been unable to explain why. Testing of
> the compliance process at every level has revealed technical failures,
> inconsistencies and lost complaints. Compliance staff failed to recognize
> violations for an extended period of time and later contradicted their own
> findings in later statements. The overall issue is we have been regularly
> assured that Compliance is not only fair but up to the challenges of an
> expanding Internet. Multiple discoveries call fairness and ability into
> Through cases presented directly by At-Large to Compliance staff we
> the importance of accepting patterns of abuse and not simply single
> complaints. While Compliance staff agreed to this on transcript in
> Singapore, they later rejected the same patterns of abuse in private.
> One of the more problematic discoveries in this analysis concerns the
> oversight of compliance itself. As many of you are aware the current CEO
> moved compliance from under the Legal department to his direct supervision.
> This was seen by the community as a positive move. However, budget
> show that Compliance actually receives its funding from ICANN's Business
> division. Additional Compliance funds also still originate with Legal.
> Having the domain-business division fund Compliance appears to be an
> inherent conflict of interest and does not engender community trust. While
> we were told Compliance was being made more independent, this was not the
> case. It has also been revealed that the head of Compliance is the wife of
> business associate of both the CEO and the head of ICANN's Business
> The main recommendation listed in the proposal is to move Compliance
> the organization. I am also recommending that the community become directly
> involved in Compliance oversight.
> I have detailed the history and recommendations here:
> A formal memo to be forwarded to ALAC is here:
> A timeline of critical events is also posted here:
> I am looking to move this agenda through At-Large starting within NARALO.
> Please feel free to send any questions or concerns to me and discuss this
> the list.
> Garth Bruen
> gbruen at knujon.com
> Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org)
> Twitter: @Knujon
> Skype: gobruen
> "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle,
> unprofitable tale" -Polybius
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the NA-Discuss