<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr" style="">
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Jonathan. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">I ask that everyone put aside the Blockchain aspect of this Assignment request. .HIPHOP as a TLD is not on the Blockchain and is not as a registry on the ENS. It never was. Being on the ENS is the choice of a domain name registrant and they
can have a .com, .net or .horse for all that matters. That is what ICANN is missing. But lets put that aside because that is not why I brought this up on the At-Large list.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">What is in serious need to repair are ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. They are broken and for using them ICANN punished me (and my company). I dare challenged ICANN staff for not taking an action they were supposed to. And they retaliated
against me and my company for challenging them.<span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">PLEASE READ THIS PART:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">One thing missed in all of this Is that ICANN recently executed a delegation of authority document from the ICANN Board to the ICANN staff in order to never require the ICANN Board to approve a REgistry Agreement again by resolution. SEE
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/delegation-of-authority-guidelines-08nov16-en.pdf">
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/delegation-of-authority-guidelines-08nov16-en.pdf</a>. It was thought of at the time as perhaps a good thing because having to pass a board resolution for the thousands of routine TLD Agreements and routine changes
is too much for a board. But following the law of unintended consequences……..<span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> The ICANN Board did pass a resolution for .org and PIR, but did not pass a resolution to approve the most recent price amendments to the Verisign .com Agreement. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> With this delegation of power, there will never need to be Board action on a registry agreement in the future and therefore, because there will be no Board Resolution, you cannot ever file an Urgent Reconsideration Request where ICANN has executed
a Registry Agreement.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Pretty good manipulation of the process there, huh?</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Jeffrey J. Neuman</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Founder & CEO</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">JJN Solutions, LLC</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Jeff@JJNSolutions.com</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">+1.202.549.5079</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Http://www.jjnsolutions.com</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="id-923a1234-78a3-4970-b902-a835eae1c8d2" class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message">
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%; font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeff Neuman; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: ICANN Accountability Mechanisms
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<div dir="auto" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
I actually raised this very issue, while we were working on the accountability framework. At the time, folks believed the power to throw out the board would suffice but clearly that is a tool of last resort.<span></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
I wonder if there are other examples of inaction so a session, of some sort, would not be focused on your case alone. While I share Evan's perspective, on this particular example, it DOES seem like a sequence of events we might dislike repeating, in another
context.<span></span><span></span></div>
<div dir="auto" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
For example, there were several voices, in the At-Large community and elsewhere, opposed to the sale of PIR. Luckily, that sale required affirmative approval, by the board, but I'm certain their are instances where a failure to act constitutes passive approval.<span></span></div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto">
<div><br>
</div>
Jonathan Zuck<br>
Executive Director<br>
Innovators Network Foundation<br>
<a href="http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org" target="_blank">www.InnovatorsNetwork.org</a><br>
Main: +1 (202) 827-7594<br>
Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>From:</b> At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:46:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div></div>
<div>
<div><span style="font-size:17pt; line-height:normal">All,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:17pt; line-height:normal">I thought this was important enough of an issue to be discussed and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.</span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:17pt; line-height:normal">Please see</span><span style="font-size:17pt; line-height:normal"> </span><a href="https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-name-only" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:12px"><span style="font-size:17pt; line-height:normal">https://circleid.com/posts/20211230-icannas-accountability-mechanisms-in-name-only</span></a><span style="font-family:Helvetica; font-size:17pt; line-height:normal">.</span>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:normal; font-size:17pt">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).</span><span style="line-height:1.5"><span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:normal; font-size:17pt">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.</span><span style="line-height:1.5"><span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt">———————</span><br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:normal; font-size:17pt">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:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt">A). Only ICANN Board Action can be challenged on an Urgent Basis. ICANN staff Action or inaction may not be.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:22.66666603088379px">————-</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:22.66666603088379px">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:22.66666603088379px"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:22.66666603088379px">——————</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt">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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px; font-size:12px; line-height:normal; font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:17pt">Sincerely,</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33);"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="x_ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Jeffrey J. Neuman</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Founder & CEO</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">JJN Solutions, LLC</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Jeff@JJNSolutions.com</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">+1.202.549.5079</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Http://www.jjnsolutions.com</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>