Request for ALAC actions (resend)
As requested by ALAC members during this morning's ALAC meeting and "At-Large Forum", I am re-sending my most recent requests to the ICANN Board and ALAC, as attached below:
"The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World" (3rd edition, 2004) "The Practical Nomad Guide to the Online Travel Marketplace" http://www.practicalnomad.com From: Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: [ICANN Board members], vint@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Request for Vancouver ICANN Board agenda Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, twomey@xxxxxxxxx, Recon-comm@xxxxxxxxx, committee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:43:51 -0800 I have previously requested, as an at-large stakeholder in ICANN, through ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), that the following matters be included in the agenda for the meeting of ICANN's Board of Directors currently scheduled for this coming week in Vancouver: (1) Stay of ICANN's decision on ".travel" pending independent review. (2) Referral to an independent review board of my request for independent review of whether ICANN's decision on ".travel" complies with ICANN's Bylaws on openness and transparency, if ICANN already has in place policies and procedures for such referral and independent review.. (3) Initiation of a process of development of ICANN policies and procedures for independent review, if they are not already "in place". For your reference, my original request through ALAC for the inclusion of these issues in the Board's Vancouver agenda was made 30 October 2005: http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/msg00113.html My requests for stay of ICANN's ".travel" decision pending independent review, and referral to an independent review panel, were timely made during the Board meeting in Mar del Plata on 8 April 2005: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000554.html Additional details and background on my requests are available at: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000553.html http://hasbrouck.org/icann/ I have received no notice of any action by, or any meeting of, ICANN or any constituent body thereof with respect to any of these requests. I remind you that these requests remain outstanding, as does my request for notice, as far in advance and in as much detail as is known, of the time, place, and manner of any meetings to be held by ICANN or any of its constituent bodies, and for copies of any documents to be considered by them, related to ".travel", to my requests concerning ".travel", or to policies and procedures for independent review of ICANN actions. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck From: Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: sTLD conditions and oversight Cc: committee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:08:10 -0800 In ALAC's 18 October 2005 announcement, you say: http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18oct05.htm "The ALAC would like specific input from you on questions posted by ICANN (see initial questions at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gTLD- questions.pdf>)." One of those "New TLD Questions" posted by ICANN is: "4. What conditions should ICANN impose on new TLD operators?.... d.....Can and should STLD use be governed by agreement?" ICANN's bylaws require that "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". ICANN can delegate only that authority which ICANN possesses. It is therefore an implicit condition of any delegation of authority by ICANN that it the delagted authority is subject to this requirement to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". But this condition has not been included explicitly in agreements between ICANN and sTLD sponsors, and sTLD sponsors have made decisions with even less openness and transparency than ICANN. So I request that ALAC ask ICANN to make this condition explicit in sTLD sponsorship agreements, and to establish a mechanism for enforcing this condition. sTLD sponsors have been, and I believe they should continue to be, subject to conditions that the sponsor (1) operate the sTLD in the interest of a specified community, and (2) provide specified mechanisms for participation by that community in sTLD decision making. Those conditions have been widely violated by sTLS sponsors, but community members have had no means of redress for complaints of these violations. ICANN has established procedures for disputes between registrants and registrars. But ICANN has never established or specified any procedures for complaints, or for resolution of disputes, over whether sTLD sponsors have complied with the terms of their agreements with ICANN -- particularly the conditions requiring that the sponsor operate the sTLD in the interest of a specified community, and provide mechanisms for participation by that community in the making of decisions for the sTLD. Since this is an issue of the right of at-large stakeholders in those communities to participate in decision-making that affects them and their interests, this should be an issue of particular concern for ALAC. I request that ALAC raise with ICANN the need for a mechanism for resolution of complaints by community members against sTLD sponsors for noncompliance with the conditions of their sponsorship agreements with ICANN, specifically including compliants that an sTLD sponsor has not operated the sTLD in the interest of the delegated community, or has not provided mechanisms for community participation in sTLD decisions. ICANN has not yet made *any* attempt to evaluate (1) whether sTLD sponsors have complied with ICANN's bylaws on transparency and openness (as they apply to delegations of decision-making authority), (2) whether sTLD sponsors have complied with the explicit conditions of their agreements requiring them to operate each sTLD for the benefit of a specified community (and *not* just, or primarily, for the benefit of the sponsor or of those who control the sponsor), or (3) whether sTLD sponsors have complied with the explicit commitments in their agreements to provide means for community members to participate in sTLD decision making. I discuss this essential missing piece of the evaluation that is supposed to be part of the current new TLD "proof of concept" at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-strategy-draft/msg00002.html I request that ALAC remind ICANN that this part of the evaluation of the new TLD's has not yet been carried out, and that ALAC insist that this part of the evaluation be carried out before more new TLD's are created. Finally, none of these or any other conditions are meaningful if there is no oversight. As a journalist directly and materially affected by the lack of openness and transparency, I have requested that the lack of openness and transparency in ICANN's decision-making on ".travel" -- including the holding of closed meetings, the refusal to permit my participation in an advertised ICANN "press conference", and the withholding form public disclosure of numerous meeting records and documents I had specifically requested and which it would have been feasible to release -- be referred to an Independent Review Panel (IRP) in accordance with Article 4, section 3 of ICANN's bylaws. I have also requested a stay of ICANN's decision, pending independent review: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000554.html More than 6 months later, ICANN has taken no (publicly disclosed) action on my requests for independent review and stay, and has given me no notice of any meeting of ICANN or any subsidiary body to consider these requests. I request that ALAC ask ICANN immediately to (1) stay its decision on ".travel" pending independent review and (2) either refer my request to an IRP, or (if it lacks the policies required by its bylaws for doing so) commence a bottom-up consensus-based process to develop policies and procedures for referral of such requests to an IRP. If these requests have not already been acted on by the time of drafting of the agenda for the Vancouver ICANN meeting, I request that ALAC ask that my requests for independent review, and stay pending independent review, be placed on the agenda for the Vancouver meeting, and that ALAC take them up with ICANN board and staff at the earliest opportunity. I will be happy to meet with ALAC to discuss these issues. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck |