If the GNSO is irrelevant, ICANN itself is at risk [Guest Post]

[Robin Gross]

Ex-GNSO Council Chair explains how ICANN is shooting itself in the  
foot & undermining the bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development  
process with its recent mis-handling of key policy issues.

http://domainincite.com/11193-if-the-gnso-is-irrelevant-icann-itself- 
is-at-risk-guest-post?

If the GNSO is irrelevant, ICANN itself is at risk [Guest Post]
Stéphane Van Gelder, December 1, 2012, 22:06:25 (UTC), Domain Policy

The weeks since October’s Toronto ICANN meeting have seen some  
extraordinary (and, if you care about the multi-stakeholder model,  
rather worrying), activity.

First, there were the two by-invitation-only meetings organised in  
November at ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s behest to iron out the Trademark  
Clearinghouse (TMCH).

The TMCH is one of the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) being put  
in place to protect people with prior rights such as trademarks from  
the risk of seeing them hijacked as a spate of new gTLDs come online.

The first meeting in Brussels served as a warning sign that policy  
developed by the many might be renegotiated at the last minute by a  
few. The follow-up meeting in Los Angeles seemed to confirm this.

Two groups, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and the  
Business Constituency (BC), met with the CEO to discuss changing the  
TMCH scheme. And although others were allowed in the room, they were  
clearly told not to tell the outside world about the details of the  
discussions.

Chehadé came out of the meeting with a strawman proposal for changes  
to the TMCH that includes changes suggested by the IPC and the BC.  
Changes that, depending upon which side of the table you’re sitting  
on, look either very much like policy changes or harmless  
implementation tweaks.

Making the GNSO irrelevant

So perhaps ICANN leadership should be given the benefit of the doubt.  
Clearly Chehadé is trying to balance the (legitimate) needs of the IP  
community to defend their existing rights with the (necessary)  
requirement to uphold the multi stakeholder policy development model.

But then the ICANN Board took another swipe at the model.

It decided to provide specific protection for the International  
Olympic Committee (IOC), the Red Cross (RC), and other  
Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) in the new gTLD program. This  
means that gTLD registries will have to add lengthy lists of  
protected terms to the “exclusion zone” of domain names that cannot  
be registered in their TLDs.

RPMs and the IOC/RC and IGO processes have all been worked on by the  
Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO). ICANN’s policy making  
body for gTLDs groups together all interested parties, from internet  
users to registries, in a true multi-stakeholder environment.

It is the epitome of the ICANN model: rule-based, hard to understand,  
at times slow or indecisive, so reliant on pro-bono volunteer  
commitment that crucial details are sometimes overlooked… But  
ultimately fair: everyone has a say in the final decision, not just  
those with the most money or the loudest voice.

The original new gTLD program policy came from the GNSO. The  
program’s RPMs were then worked on for months by GNSO groups. The  
GNSO currently has a group working on the IOC/RC issue and is  
starting work on IGO policy development.

But neither Chehadé, in the TMCH situation, or the Board with the IOC/ 
RC and IGO protections, can be bothered to wait.

So they’ve waded in, making what look very much like top-down  
decisions, and defending them with a soupcon of hypocrisy by saying  
it’s for the common good. Yet on the very day the GNSO Chair was  
writing to the Board to provide an update on the GNSO’s IOC/RC/IGO  
related work, the Board’s new gTLD committee was passing resolutions  
side-stepping that work.

The next day, on November 27, 2012, new gTLD committee Chair Cherine  
Chalaby wrote:

     The Committee’s 26 November 2012 resolution is consistent with  
its 13 September 2012 resolution and approves temporary restrictions  
in the first round of new gTLDs for registration of RCRC and IOC  
names at the second level which will be in place until such a time as  
a policy is adopted that may required further action on the part of  
the Board.

Continuing on the same line, Chalaby added:

     The second resolution provides for interim protection of names  
which qualify for .int registration and, for IGOs which request such  
special protection from ICANN by 28 February 2013. (…) The Committee  
adopted both resolutions at this time in deference to geopolitical  
concerns and specific GAC advice, to reassure the impacted  
stakeholders in the community, acknowledge and encourage the  
continuing work of the GNSO Council, and take an action consistent  
with its 13 September 2012 resolution.

A soothing “sleep on” message to both the community and the GNSO that  
the bottom-up policy development process is safe and sound, as long  
as no-one minds ICANN leadership cutting across it and making the  
crucial decisions.

Red alert!

Chehadé’s drive to get personally involved and help solve issues is  
paved with good intentions. In the real world, i.e. the one most of  
us live and work in, a hands-on approach by the boss generally has  
few downsides. But in the ICANN microverse, it is fraught with danger.

So is the Board deciding that it knows better than its community and  
cannot afford to wait for them to “get it”?

These latest episodes should have alarm bells ringing on the  
executive floor of ICANN Towers.

ICANN only works if it is truly about all interested parties getting  
together and working through due process to reach consensus  
decisions. Yes, this process is sometimes lengthy and extremely  
frustrating. But it is what sets ICANN apart from other governance  
organisations and make it so well suited to the internet’s warp-speed  
evolution.

Turn your back on it, act like there are valid circumstances which  
call for this ideology to be pushed aside, and you may as well hand  
the technical coordination of the internet’s naming and numbering  
system to the UN. Simple as that.

This is a guest post written by Stéphane Van Gelder, strategy  
director for NetNames. He has served as chair of the GNSO Council and  
is currently a member of ICANN’s Nominating Committee.



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121201/32a58955/attachment.html>