[At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms
evan at telly.org
Thu Dec 30 16:25:53 UTC 2021
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
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> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Founder & CEO
> JJN Solutions, LLC
> Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 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
> 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...
More information about the At-Large