registrar – Technology Liberation Front

PFF Event: ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?

Berin Szoka — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:51:08 +0000

PFF Adjunct Fellow Mike Palage led this extraordinary discussion of ICANN’s origins, evolution and future with four of ICANN’s “Founding Fathers”: Milton Mueller (author of Ruling the Root), law professor David Johnson, ICANN’s first CEO Mike Roberts and then ICANN CEO Paul Twomey. In particular, the group discussed ICANN’s mission, governance structure, and accountability; the difficult issue of new generic Top Level Domain names (gTLDs) and trademark concerns; and ICANN’s future relationship with the U.S. government. Be sure to check out the handy ICANN Glossary on page 33. The audio can be downloaded here.

Here’s the transcript (PDF):

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17199336&access_key=key-cqu7iq5szm3r0ocmun3&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed

Berin Szoka — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:15:40 +0000

I’ve been working closely with PFF Adjunct Fellow & former ICANN Board member Michael D. Palage on ICANN issues. Michael had this to say about the ongoing saga of ICANN’s attempt to create new gTLDs.

During the recent ICANN Board meeting in Mexico City, the Board authorized the creation and funding of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT). This team was to be comprised of “an internationally diverse group of persons with knowledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system to develop and propose solutions to the overarching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs.” This IRT is tasked to produce a report for consideration by the ICANN community at the Sydney meeting.

The IRT consists of 24 members:

Chairwoman Caroline G. Chicoine; and
Seventeen members; and
Six ex officio members: Four IPC-elected officers and two-GNSO elected Board Directors (Bruce Tonkin and Rita Rodin Johnston).

I have a number of friends and colleagues serving on this team and I wish them well in their important endeavor.

I’ve previously proposed a number of rights-protection mechanisms that IRT should consider. Today, I offer a few suggestions that I hope will guide IRT as they embark on their important work tomorrow. In particular, I hope they’ll implement some of my suggestions intended to make the IRT process more transparent-so the rest of the global Internet can follow along with their important work and provide constructive input where possible.

http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13617694&access_key=key-j1h1znpez1dwv2o1z4j&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Academic Work ebay registry

Progress on Point Volume 16, Issue 10 March 2009 ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed by Michael D. Palage1 Significant concerns have been raised2 about ICANN’s proposal3 for processing large numbers of applications for new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) such as .BLOG. ICANN’s goal is to expand the domain name space and thus increase competition and innovation. But the global business community has expressed strong concern that, without greater protections for trademark holders, the effect of ICANN’s proposal would be not so much to expand the domain name space as to duplicate it by requiring large numbers of defensive registrations for every new gTLD created. It is Internet users who ultimately bear the dead-weight costs to business of defensive registrations and who really suffer from increased domain name confusion and vulnerability to phishing scams. ICANN deserves credit for responding to these concerns by creating an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) responsible for proposing procedural and substantive safeguards for the new gTLD process.4 I offer four recommendations to ensure the IRT’s success: • The IRT should conduct all its deliberations in an open and transparent manner. Michael D. Palage is an Adjunct Fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation’s (PFF) Center for Internet Freedom (CIF). He served on the ICANN Board from 2003 to 2006. The views expressed in this report are the author’s own, and are not necessarily the views of the PFF board, fellows or staff. 1. In the interest of openness and transparency, it is important to disclose that I actively pursued a membership on the IRT. While ultimately not selected, I look forward to monitoring the group’s activities through the mechanisms proposed in this article and making constructive comments accordingly. See Michael Palage, “ICANN’s ‘Go/ No-Go’ Decision Concerning New gTLDs,” The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point Volume 16, Issue 3 (Feb 2009), available at http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.3gTLDgonogo.pdf. ICANN, “Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 2,” Feb. 18, 2009, available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-18feb09-en.pdf. ICANN, “Adopted Board Resolutions, Mexico,” March 6, 2009, available at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm. 2. 3. 4. 1444 EYE STREET, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 202-289-8928 mail@pff.org www.pff.org

ICANN at a Crossroads: Please Choose Carefully

Berin Szoka — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:31:01 +0000

By Mike Palage, PFF Adjunct Fellow & former ICANN Board Member

TPI’s Tom Lenard and Larry White released a study yesterday entitled ICANN at a Crossroads: A Proposal for Better Governance and Performance (PDF). ICANN is, indeed, at a crossroads: A number of critical Internet governance issues will be decided over the next 6-12 months-such as:

How to roll out new gTLDs like .BLOG, which I’ve discussed here and here (PDF).
ICANN’s future as an increasingly independent organization, which I’ve discussed here.

There is an acute need to better educate the public and policymakers about these complex issues and about how ICANN works-something that will be addressed by my upcoming primer on ICANN. For that reason, I welcome TPI’s contribution to this important debate about the future of the Internet. I share TPI’s concerns about the inadequacy of mechanisms currently in place to ensure ICANN’s accountability and the absence of any checks on ICANN’s ever-expanding budget.

But I strongly disagree with TPI’s conclusion that:

ICANN should remain a nonprofit organization, but it should be governed by and accountable to its direct users: the registries and the registrars. The seats on ICANN’s board could be rotated among the major operators in a manner that would reflect the diversity of viewpoints among the registries and registrars.

Having worn many hats in the ICANN eco-system-as a consultant for both registries and registrars and as a business user and IP attorney-I must say that adopting this model of direct-user control would be suicidal for ICANN. Filling the ICANN Board with registries and registrars would create at least the appearance of a cartel, allowing those opposed to ICANN’s underlying model of public/private-partnership to capture the organization. Neither capture by private interests opposed to the “public” part of the model nor a counter-attack by those who object to the “private” part of the model would be a good thing for Internet users or ICANN stakeholders.

Having invested over 10 years of my life in ICANN’s diverse and inclusive public/private partnership model, I speak from first-hand experience that ICANN is far from perfect as an organization. I’ve often feared that ICANN is heading in the wrong direction and I’ve never hesitated to say so. But despite these shortcomings, the various stakeholders I work with in the seemingly byzantine “ICANN process” remain as committed as ever to the principles set forth in NTIA’s 1998 White Paper as the foundations of Internet governance. The staying-power of this shared belief in a common set of principles among all stakeholders reaffirms my faith in the public/private partnership-whatever other changes need to be made.

Lenard and White are right about one thing: We do need a new model for ensuring ICANN’s accountability after the expiration of ICANN’s current relationship with the U.S. Government. But the model they suggest isn’t it—as Steve Delbianco has pointed out.