[bc-gnso] FW: Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI---




http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/07/raa-investigation

Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations
by Kieren McCarthy | 7 Feb 2012 |
Starting this week and ending on 15 February when a revised Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement (RAA) is expected to be published for public review, 
.Nxt will take you inside the secret negotiations to update the domain name 
system's key contract.
In response to a failure by ICANN to provide sufficient openness or 
transparency regarding the negotiations, despite promises otherwise, we have 
been in contact with many of those in and surrounding the negotiations, all of 
whom have spoken on the condition of anonymity.
[Description: 
http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/raa-signing.jpg]
Signing the last RAA revision in 2009. The smiles are not there in 2012.
Our investigation has uncovered:
*         The depth of disagreement between registrars
*         That ICANN is willing to "throw registrars under the bus" in order to 
keep governments happy and look as if it is solving the problem
*         The pressure placed on ICANN's negotiating team to force through 
results dictated from above
*         A conscious effort by ICANN to force registrars' hands by making 
public statements about what changes will be included, despite having no idea 
how to introduce them
*         A refusal on some registrars' part to acknowledge that the world has 
changed, to the extent that some are advocating walking away from the whole 
process
Our investigation also highlights a significant number of failures on the part 
of ICANN staff, including:
*         Agreeing to a fast-track negotiation despite the likelihood of failure
*         Insisting on closed-doors discussions, despite a past history of it 
failing
*         Failing to keep the community adequately informed
*         Putting forward the wrong negotiation team
*         Undermining negotiations through public pronouncements
*         Failing to fully understand registrar realities but expecting 
registrars to work in good faith to make changes work shortly after refusing to 
listen to their concerns
We will begin our review later this week with the most contentious part of RAA 
negotiations - the insistence that there be some kind of verification of 
registrant data for domain names.
But first some quick history
When the ICANN Board ordered a fast-track negotiation over the key contract 
that the organization has with registrars - the RAA - it used unusually strong 
language.
It called for staff and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and 
to do so "as a matter of extreme urgency""The Board wishes to convey its sense 
of urgency on this issue," began the 
resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> of 28 
October. Another part read: "The Board requires action." It called for staff 
and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and to do so "as a 
matter of extreme urgency".
Equally strong language had come from the world's governments earlier that 
week. They were sick of the delay in changes to the RAA to the extent that they 
threatened to walk 
away<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/24/governments-registrars-fight> from the 
entire decision-making structure that ICANN embodies.
A few months later, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not to mention two 
Congressional hearings and several business coalitions focussed in on one of 
the issues tied up with RAA negotiations - the issue of accurate registrant 
data.
Open, transparent? Nope.
Both parties were aware this did not please anyoneDespite ICANN's own 
obligation to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and 
transparent manner", it decided to hold negotiations over the RAA in secret, 
with just ICANN staff and registrar representatives present. Both parties were 
aware this did not please anyone.
In an 
announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02dec11-en.htm>,
 ICANN noted: "To promote transparency and timely communications, ICANN has 
created a dedicated Wiki to describe the communications plan, publish regular 
status updates on the amendment topics under consideration, and provide comment 
opportunities to the broader ICANN community."
The registrars promised the 
same<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12335.html>: "To 
ensure transparency, registrars and ICANN will update the community regarding 
the substance and progress of negotiations. Decision rationale will be included 
as part of those communications and at the time the new agreement is published 
for public comment."
As soon as negotiations began, however, the promise of openness and 
transparency into the discussions was jettisoned. Not only are the meeting 
reports<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/RAA+Negotiation+Meeting+Reports>
 largely meaningless but ICANN has stopped producing them.
As of today, 7 February, the last report available is from 5 January. There 
have been at least two meetings between the parties since 5 January; none are 
listed.
Uncovering the discussion
ICANN counted on its negotiations being secretICANN counted on its negotiations 
being secret. However such is the level of concern at the tactics used, and the 
failure of key parties on both sides to approach the negotiations in good 
faith, that those concerned about the process have spoken to us on the 
condition of anonymity.
What results is as damning as the 
letter<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/16/ftc-letter-to-icann> sent to ICANN 
recently by the Federal Trade Commission, which found that ICANN had "neglected 
to respond to the needs of this community both in the accuracy of Whois data 
and in response times for access and action".
Yet again, ICANN has failed to effectively carry out its job. When the revised 
RAA is published - which should be on 15 February - we will publish what 
changes we believe ICANN needs to make in order to maintain confidence in its 
ability as an organization to look after the domain name system


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12