Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN waves the caution flag at ICANN on new gTLDs

["Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt wasn't pleased tonight ;-)

Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733

(please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical 
autocorrect  including but not limited to typos)

On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:02 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Read all about it at http://www.Circleid.com
> 
> Or at http://blog.netchoice.org 
> 
> Or see below.
> 
> US Government waves the caution flag at ICANN
> 
> This month, ICANN is driving hard to get two of its horses to the finish 
> line.  The first is barely a year old – it’s the first formal review of 
> ICANN’s accountability and transparency.   The second horse is going on 4 
> years old: ICANN’s plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains (TLDs) 
> for the Internet.   
> 
> Just as these horses have entered the home stretch, one of the racecourse 
> officials is vigorously waving the yellow caution flag.   And ICANN would do 
> well to pull back on the reins.
> 
> Earlier today, US National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
> (NTIA) head Lawrence Strickling sent a letter  to ICANN Chairman Peter 
> Dengate Thrush, regarding the proposed ‘final’ Guidebook for new TLDs.   The 
> NTIA letter suggests that in its race for new TLDs, ICANN is trampling its 
> obligations to assess costs and benefits and to explain its unilateral 
> decision to eliminate restrictions on cross ownership among registries and 
> registrars.
> 
> ICANN agreed to these obligations just a year ago, when it signed an 
> Affirmation of Commitments with NTIA.  In the Affirmation, ICANN committed to 
> do  ‘fact-based policy development’, and to ‘provide a thorough and reasoned 
> explanation of decisions taken’.   
> 
> NTIA doesn’t think ICANN is meeting its commitment, and most of us in the 
> online business community agree.  The concerns raised by NTIA are plainly 
> stated, and are similar to comments coming in from many other government and 
> Internet stakeholders. 
> 
> But there’s a risk that this plain message could be obscured by concerns 
> about the US Government re-asserting its legacy of oversight over ICANN, 
> which it created over 10 years ago as a way to internationalize Internet 
> management.
> 
> NTIA stepped back from formal oversight of ICANN when it signed the 
> Affirmation of Commitments in October 2009.  I was among those who applauded 
> the Affirmation agreement as a way to transition ICANN from US oversight to 
> independence, while providing explicit accountability to public and private 
> sector stakeholders.
> 
> So it’s a little bit surprising for the US Government to assert itself so 
> strongly just a year after ICANN’s transition from US oversight.   After all, 
> the Affirmation created new mechanisms for global stakeholders to conduct 
> reviews of ICANN’s execution for things like accountability and maintaining 
> security of the DNS.
> 
> But as a signer of the Affirmation, NTIA is doing what any contract partner 
> must do:  if you think your counterpart is heading down a path that will lead 
> to failure and broken obligations, you need to say so --  in no uncertain 
> terms and as early as possible, so that course corrections can be taken 
> before things go too far off course.
> 
> That’s pretty much what NTIA is doing now by waving the caution flag at 
> ICANN.   The Agency’s letter cites the same principles and obligations that 
> guided the Accountability Review just completed, as well as the next 
> Accountability Review sometime after 2012.   These principles and 
> obligations, however, need to apply every day, not just at review time every 
> 3 years.   
> 
> Like it or not, the Affirmation of Commitments is now the only mechanism we 
> have when it comes to holding ICANN accountable to its role and 
> responsibilities to the global public interest.  But it’s not just the job of 
> US Government to point out how ICANN is straying from its obligations.   All 
> of us in the Internet community need to hold ICANN accountable, in online 
> comments and on-site in Cartagena next week. 
> 
> It’s not just good policy that’s at stake here; a botched new TLD plan could 
> endanger ICANN’s very existence.
> 
> ICANN is riding for a fall if it disregards concerns of global governments 
> and businesses.   Because there’s another horse in this race: the United 
> Nations and its 185-year old bureaucracy, the ITU.  The ITU is riding a much 
> older and slower horse, as I described in a post this week.
> 
> If ICANN stumbles, you can bet the ITU will ride into the lead.  And we will 
> see a very different kind of accountability if the United Nations takes 
> charge of the internet: each government gets one vote, with no votes for 
> civil society or private sector folks who built the internet and create 
> nearly all the content and commerce.
> 
> Many of us in the private sector, along with a handful of governments, have 
> been defending the ICANN model from growing encroachment by the United 
> Nations and the ITU.   ICANN needs to show some appreciation for its 
> precarious situation. 
> 
> ICANN can start by easing-up on the reins and explaining how and why it’s 
> making unilateral decisions.  And ICANN should deliver the economic study of 
> costs and benefits before it tries to force a final plan for launching TLDs.  
>   Think of it as putting the horse back in front of the cart where he belongs.
> 
> --Steve DelBianco
>