Centre for Internet and Society

DIDP Request #12: Revenues

Aditya Garg — 2015-09-14T15:32:37Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sought information from ICANN on their revenue streams by sending them a second request under their Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. This request and their response have been described in this blog post.

CIS Request

22 July 2015

To:

Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board

Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India

All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks

Sub: Raw data with respect to granular income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-2011

We would like to thank ICAN for their prompt response to our earlier requests. We appreciate that the granular Revenue Details for FY14 have been posted online.[1] We also appreciate that a similar document has been posted for FY13.[2]

And we hope that one for FY12 would be posted soon, as noted by you in your Response to our Request No. 20141222-1.[3]

As also noted by you in the same request, similar reports cannot be prepared for FY99 to FY11 since “[i]t would be extremely time consuming and overly burdensome to cull through the raw data in order to compile the reports for the prior years”.[4]

Additionally, it was also mentioned that the “relevant information is available in other public available documents”.[5]

Hence, we would like to request for the raw data for years FY99 to FY11, for our research on accountability and transparency mechanisms in Internet governance, specifically of ICANN. Additionally, we would also like to request for the links to such public documents where the information is available.

We look forward to the receipt of this information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Please feel free to contact us in the event of any doubts regarding our queries.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Aditya Garg,
I Year, National Law University, Delhi
For Centre for Internet & Society
W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

ICANN referred to our earlier DIDP request (see here) where we had sought for a detailed report of their granular income and revenue statements from 1999-2014. They refused to disclose the data on grounds that it would be ‘time consuming’ and ‘overly burdensome’, which is a ground for refusal as per their exceptions to disclosure.

Our request may be found here, and their response is linked to here.

[1]. See FY14 Revenue Detail By Source, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy2014-revenue-source-01may15-en.pdf.

[2]. See FY13 Revenue Detail By Source, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy2013-revenue-source-01may15-en.pdf

[3]. See Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request No. 20141222-1, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf.

[4]. Id

[5]. See Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request No. 20141222-1, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues

Internet Democratisation: IANA Transition Leaves Much to be Desired

vidushi — 2016-11-03T07:52:37Z

At best, the IANA transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on October 6, 2016.

Many suspect Washington’s 2014 announcement of handing over control of the IANA contract to be fuelled by the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance. Source: AFP

September 30, 2016, marked the expiration of a contract between the US government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.

In simpler, acronym-free terms, Washington’s formal oversight over the Internet’s address book has come to an end with the expiration of this contract, with control now being passed on to the “global multistakeholder community”.

ICANN was incorporated in California in 1998 to manage the backbone of the Internet, which included the domain name system (DNS), allocation of IP addresses and root servers. After an agreement with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), ICANN was tasked with operating the IANA functions, which includes maintenance of the root zone file of the DNS. Over the years Washington has rejected calls to hand over the control of IANA functions, but in March 2014 it announced its intentions to do so and laid down conditions for the handover. Many suspect the driving force behind this announcement to be the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance.

The conditions laid down by the NTIA were met, and the US government accepted the transition proposal, amidst much political pressure and opposition, most notably from Senator Ted Cruz.

This transition is a step in the right direction, but in reality, it changes very little as it fails to address two critical issues: Of jurisdiction and accountability.

Jurisdiction is important while considering the resolution of contractual disputes, application of labour and competition laws, disputes regarding ICANN’s decisions, consumer protection, financial transparency, etc. Many of these questions, although not all, will depend on where ICANN is located. ICANN’s new bylaws mention that it will continue to be incorporated in California, and subject to California law just as it was pre-transition. Having the DNS subject to the laws of a single country can only lend to its fragility. ICANN’s US jurisdiction also means that it is not free from the political pressures from the US Senate and in turn, the toxic effect of American party politics that were made visible in the events leading up to September 30.

Another critical issue that the transition does not address is that of ICANN accountability. Post-transition, ICANN’s board will continue to be the ultimate decision-making authority, thus controlling the organisation’s functioning, and ICANN staff will be accountable to the board alone.

To put things in perspective, look at the board’s track record in the recent past. In August, an Independent Review Panel (IRP) found that ICANN’s board had violated ICANN’s own bylaws and had failed to discharge its transparency obligations when it failed to look into staff misbehaviour. Following this, in September, ICANN decided to respond to such allegations of mismanagement, opacity and lack of accountability by launching a review. The review however, would not look into the issues, failures and false claims of the board, but instead focus on the process by which ICANN staff was able to engage in such misbehaviour. This ironically, will be in the form of an internal review that will pass through ICANN staff — the subjects of the investigation — before being taken up to the board.

At best, the transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation

If the DIDP Did Its Job

asvatha — 2016-11-07T12:57:18Z

Over the course of two years, the Centre for Internet and Society sent 28 requests to ICANN under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). A part of ICANN’s accountability initiatives, DIDP is “intended to ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities, and within ICANN's possession, custody, or control, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.”

Through the DIDP, any member of the public can request information contained in documents from ICANN. We’ve written about the process here, here and here. As a civil society group that does research on internet governance related topics, CIS had a variety of questions for ICANN. The 28 DIDP requests we have sent cover a range of subjects: from revenue and financial information, to ICANN’s relationships with its contracted parties, its contractual compliance audits, harassment policies and the diversity of participants in its public forum. We have blogged about each DIDP request where we have summarized ICANN’s responses.

Here are the DIDP requests we sent in:

Dec 2014	Jan/Feb 2015	Aug/Sept 2015	Nov 2015	Apr/May 2016
ICANN meeting expenditure	Revenue from gTLD auction	Implementation of NETmundial principles	IANA transition postponement	Board Governance Committee Reports
Granular revenue statements	Globalisation Advisory Groups	Raw data - Granular income data	Presumptive renewal of registries	Diversity Analysis
ICANN cyber attacks	Organogram	Compliance audits - registries	ICANN-RIR relationship	Compliance audits
Implementation of NETmundial outcome document	Involvement in NETmundial Initiative	Compliance audits - registrars		Harassment policy
Complaints to ICANN ombudsman	RIR contract fees	Registrar abuse contact		DIDP statistics *
		Verisign Contractual violations		gTLD applicant support program
		Contractual auditors		Root Zone Maintenance agreements
		Internal website

ICANN’s responses were analyzed and rated between 0-4 based on the amount of information disclosed. The reasons given for the lack of full disclosure were also studied.

DIDP response rating
0	No relevant information disclosed
1	Very little information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
2	Partial information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
3	Adequate information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
4	All information disclosed

ICANN has defined a set of preconditions under which they are not obligated to answer a request. These preconditions are generously used by ICANN to justify their lack of a comprehensive answer. The wording of the policy also allows ICANN to dodge answering a request if it doesn’t have the relevant documents already in its possession. The responses were also classified by the number of times a particular DIDP condition for non-disclosure was invoked. We will see why these weaken ICANN’s accountability initiatives.

Of the 28 DIDP requests, only 14% were answered fully, without the use of the DIDP conditions of non-disclosure. Seven out of 28 or 40% of the DIDPs received a 0-rated answer which reflects extremely poorly on the DIDP mechanism itself. Of the 7 responses that received 0-rating, 4 were related to complaints and contractual compliance. We had asked for details on the complaints received by the ombudsman, details on contractual violations by Verisign and abuse contacts maintained by registrars for filing complaints. We received no relevant information.

We have earlier written about the extensive and broad nature of the 12 conditions of non-disclosure that ICANN uses. These conditions were used in 24 responses out of 28. ICANN was able to dodge from fully answering 85% of the DIDP requests that they got from CIS. This is alarming especially for an organization that claims to be fully transparent and accountable. The conditions for non-disclosure have been listed in this document and can be referred to while reading the following graph.

On reading the conditions for non-disclosure, it seems like ICANN can refuse to answer any DIDP request if it so wished. These exclusions are numerous, vaguely worded and contain among them a broad range of information that should legitimately be in the public domain: Correspondence, internal information, information related to ICANN’s relationship with governments, information derived from deliberations among ICANN constituents, information provided to ICANN by private parties and the kicker - information that would be too burdensome for ICANN to collect and disseminate.

As we can see from the graph, the most used condition under which ICANN can refuse to answer a DIDP request is F. Predictably, this is the most vaguely worded DIDP condition of the lot: “Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.” It is up to ICANN to decide what information is confidential with no justification needed or provided for it. ICANN has used this condition 11 times in responding to our 28 requests.

It is also necessary to pay attention to condition L which allow ICANN to reject “Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.” This is perhaps the weakest point in the entire list due its subjective nature. Firstly, on whose standards must this information request be reasonable? If the point of a transparency mechanism is to make sure that information sought by the public is disseminated, should they be allowed to obfuscate information because it is too burdensome to collect? Even if this is fair given the time constraints of the DIDP mechanism, it must not be used as liberally as has been happening. The last sub point is perhaps the most subjective. If a staff member dislikes a particular requestor, this point would justify their refusal to answer a request regardless of its validity. This hardly seems fair or transparent. This condition has been used 9 times in our 28 requests.

Besides the DIDP non-disclosure conditions, ICANN also has an excuse built into the definition of DIDP. Since it is not obliged to create or summarize documents under the DIDP process, it can simply claim to not have the specific document we request and thus negate its responsibility to our request. This is what ICANN did with one of our requests for raw financial data. For our research, we required raw data from ICANN specifically with regard to its expenditure on staff and board members for their travel and attendance at meetings. As an organization that is answerable to multiple stakeholders including governments and the public, it is justified to expect that they have financial records of such items in a systematic manner. However, we were surprised to learn that ICANN does not in fact have these stored in a manner that they can send as attachments or publish. Instead they directed us to the audited financial reports which did little for our research. However, in response to our later request for granular data on revenue from domain names, ICANN explained that while they do not have such a document in their possession, they would create one. This distinction between the two requests seems arbitrary to us since we consider both to be important to public.

Nevertheless, there were some interesting outcomes from our experience filing DIDPs. We learnt that there has been no substantive work done to inculcate the NETmundial principles at ICANN, that ICANN has no idea which regional internet registry contributes the most to its budget, and that it does not store (or is not willing to reveal) any raw financial data. These outcomes do not contribute to a sense of confidence in the organization.

ICANN has an opportunity to reform this particular transparency mechanism at its Workstream 2 discussions. ICANN must make use of this opportunity to listen and work with people who have used the DIDP process in order to make it useful, effective and efficient. To that effect, we have some recommendations from our experience with the DIDP process.

That ICANN does not currently possess a particular document is not an excuse if it has the ability to create one. In its response to our questions on the IANA transition, ICANN indicated that it does not have the necessary documents as the multi stakeholder body that it set up is the one conducting the transition. This is somewhat justified. However, in response to our request for financial details, ICANN must not be able to give the excuse that it does not have a document in its possession. It and it alone has the ability to create the document and in response to a request from the public, it should.

ICANN must also revamp its conditions for non-disclosure and make it tighter. It must reduce the number of exclusions to its disclosure policy and make sure that the exclusion is not done arbitrarily. Specifically with respect to condition F, ICANN must clarify how information was classified as confidential and why that is different from everything else on the list of conditions.

Further, ICANN should not be able to use condition L to outright reject a DIDP request. Instead, there must be a way for the requester and ICANN to come to terms about the request. This could happen by an extension of the 1 month deadline, financial compensation by requester for any expenditure on ICANN’s part to answer the request or by a compromise between the requester and ICANN on the terms of the request. The sub point about requests made “by a vexatious or querulous individual” must be removed from condition L or at least be separated from the condition so that it is clear why the request for disclosure was denied.

ICANN should also set up a redressal mechanism specific to DIDP. While ICANN has the Reconsideration Requests process to rectify any wrongdoing on the part of staff or board members, this is not adequate to identify whether a DIDP was rejected on justifiable grounds. A separate mechanism that deals only with DIDP requests and wrongful use of the non-disclosure conditions would be helpful. According to the icann bylaws, in addition to Requests for Reconsideration, ICANN has also established an independent third party review of allegations against the board and/or staff members. A similar mechanism solely for reviewing whether ICANN’s refusal to answer a DIDP request is justified would be extremely useful.

A strong transparency mechanism must make sure that its objective are to provide answers, not to find ways to justify its lack of answers. With this in mind, we hope that the revamp of transparency mechanisms after workstream 2 discussions leads to a better DIDP process than we are used to.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job

How Workstream 2 Plans to Improve ICANN's Transparency

Asvatha Babu — 2016-11-11T10:05:04Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has worked extensively on ICANN’s transparency policies. We are perhaps the single largest users of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. Our goal in doing so is not to be a thorn in ICANN’s side, but to try and ensure that ICANN, the organisation, as well as the ICANN community have access to the data required to carry out the task of regulating the global domain name system.

The transparency subgroup of ICANN’s Workstream 2 dialogue attempts to see how they could effectively improve the transparency and accountability of the organization. The main document under scrutiny at the moment is the draft Transparency Report published a few days before the 57th ICANN meeting in Hyderabad.

The report begins with an acknowledgement of the value of taking tips from the Right to Information policies of other institutions and governments. My colleague Padmini Baruah had earlier written a blog post comparing the exclusion policy of ICANN’s DIDP and the Indian Government’s RTI where she found that “the net cast by the DIDP exclusions policy is more vast than even than that of a democratic state’s transparency law.”[1] The WS2 report not only discusses the DIDP process, but also discusses ICANN’s proactive disclosures (with regard to lobbying etc) and whistleblower policies. This article focuses solely on the first.

As our earlier blog posts have mentioned, CIS sent in 28 DIDP requests over the last two years. Our experience with DIDP has been less than satisfactory and we are pleased that DIDP reform was an important part of the discussions of this subgroup. The report proposes some concrete structural changes to the DIDP process but skirts around some of the more controversial ones.

The recommendation to make the process of submitting requests clearer is a good one. There are currently no instructions on the follow-up process or what ICANN requires of the requestors. The report also recommends capping any extension to the original 30-day limit to an additional 30 days. While this is good, we further recommend that ICANN stay in touch with the requestor in order to help them to the best of its ability. The correspondence should ideally not be limited to a notification that they require an extension. Any clarifications on the part of the requestor must be resolved by ICANN. We commend the report for pointing out that the status quo – where there is no outside limit for extension of time beyond the mandated 30 days – is problematic as it allows the ICANN staff to give lesser priority to responding to DIDP requests. We strongly suggest that extensions of time on responding to DIDP requests be restricted to a maximum of 7 days after the passing of the 30-day period, after which liability should be strictly imposed on ICANN in the form of an individual fine, analogous to India’s RTI policy.[2]

One of the major areas of focus for this report and for our earlier analysis was the problematic nature of the exclusions to the DIDP. I had written that the conditions were "numerous, vaguely worded and contain among them a broad range of information that should legitimately be in the public domain.”[3] This is echoed by the report which calls for a deletion of two clauses that we found most used in denying our requests for information.

The report also calls into question the subjective nature of the last condition which states that ICANN can deny information if they find requests “not reasonable, excessive or overly burdensome, not feasible, abusive or vexatious or made by a vexatious or querulous individual.” As seen from our blog posts, we are of the firm belief that such a subjective condition has no place in a robust information disclosure policy. Requiring the Ombudsman’s consent to invoke it is a good first step. In addition to that, we strongly encourage that objective guidelines which specify when a requestor is considered “vexatious” be drawn up and made public.

The most disappointing aspect of this report is that it does not delve into details about having an independent party dedicated to reviewing the DIDP process to address grievances. We believe that this must not be left to the Ombudsman who cannot devote all their time to this process. We are of the opinion that an independent party would also be able to more effectively oversee the tracking and periodic review of the DIDP mechanism.

In conclusion, we believe that this report is a good start but does not comprehensively answer all of our issues with the DIDP process as it is. We look forward to more engagement with the Transparency subgroup to close all loopholes within the DIDP process.

[1] Padmini Baruah, Peering behind the veil of ICANN’s DIDP, (September 21, 2015), available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icann2019s-didp (Last visited on November 9, 2016).

[2] Section 20(1), Right to Information Act, 2005.

[3] Asvatha Babu, If the DIDP Did Its Job, (November 3, 2016), available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job (Last Visited on November 9, 2016).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/how-workstream-2-plans-to-improve-icanns-transparency

ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues

geetha — 2014-12-12T05:08:02Z

Following requests from CIS, ICANN has shared a detailed list of its revenues from domain names for the fiscal year ending June 2014. Such level of detail has, until now, been unavailable. Historical data is still to be made available.

Five days ago, CIS received a detailed list of ICANN’s revenues from domain name sales and renewals for the fiscal year ending June 2014. The document, sent to us by ICANN’s India head Mr. Samiran Gupta, lists payments received by ICANN from registrars, registries, sponsors and other entities such as the NRO and Country Code TLD administrators. Such granular information is not available at the moment on ICANN’s website as part of its financial transparency disclosures. A summary has also been provided by ICANN.

This revenue disclosure from ICANN comes on the heels of public and email correspondence between CIS and ICANN staff. At the Asia Pacific Regional IGF (August 3-6, 2014), CIS’ Sunil Abraham sought granular data – both current and historical – on ICANN’s revenues from the domain name industry.

Again, at the ICANN Open Forum at IGF (4 September 2014), Sunil sought “details of a list of legal entities that give money to ICANN and how much money they give to ICANN every year”. In emails to Kuek Yu-Chuang (ICANN’s Asia Pacific head) and Xavier Calvez (ICANN CFO), CIS had asked for historical data as well.

The global domain name industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and ICANN sits at the centre of the web. ICANN is responsible for the policy-making and introduction of new Top Level Domains (TLDs), and it also performs technical coordination and maintenance of the Internet’s unique identifiers (domain names and IP addresses). For each domain name that is registered or renewed, ICANN receives payment through a complex contractual network of registries and registrars. The domain name industry is ICANN’s single largest revenue source.

Given the impending IANA transition and accountability debates at ICANN, and the rapid growth of the global domain name industry, one would imagine that ICANN is held up to the same standard of accountability as laid down in the right to information mechanisms of many countries. At the ICANN Open Forum (IGF Istanbul), Sunil raised this very point. Had a Public Information Officer in India failed to respond to a request for information for a month (as ICANN had to CIS’ request for granular revenue data), the officer would have been fined and reprimanded. Since there are no sufficiently effective accountability or reactive transparency measures at ICANN, such penalties are not in place.

In any event, CIS received the list of ICANN’s current domain name revenues after continual email exchanges with ICANN staff. This is undoubtedly heartening, as ICANN has shown itself responsive to repeated requests for transparency. But it remains that ICANN has shared revenue data only for the fiscal year ending June 2014, and historical revenue data is still not publicly available. Neither is a detailed list (current and historical) of ICANN’s expenditures publicly available. Perhaps ICANN could provide the necessary information during its regular Quarterly Stakeholder Reports, as well as on its website. This would go a long way in ascertaining and improving ICANN’s accountability and transparency.

The documents:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014

ICANN takes one step forward in its human rights and accountability commitments

Akriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy Kenyanito — 2019-12-19T11:35:16Z

Akriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy Kenyanito take a look at ICANN's Implementation Assessment Report for the Workstream 2 recommendations and break down the key human rights considerations in it. Akriti chairs the Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights at ICANN and Ephraim works on Human Rights and Business for Article 19, leading their ICANN engagement.

The article was first published on Article 19 on December 16, 2019

ICANN is the international non-profit organization that brings together various stakeholders to create policies aimed at coordinating the Domain Name System. Some of these stakeholders include representatives from government, civil society, academia, the private sector, and the technical community.

During the recently concluded 66th International Meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in Montreal (Canada); the ICANN board adopted by consensus the recommendations contained within the Work Stream 2 (WS2) Final Report. This report was generated as part of steps towards accountability after the September 30th 2016 U.S. government handing over of its unilateral control over ICANN, through its previous stewardship role of the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA).

The Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability are seen as a big step ahead in the incorporation of human rights in ICANN’s various processes, with over 100 recommendations on aspects ranging from diversity to transparency. An Implementation Team has been constituted which comprises the Co-chairs and the rapporteurs from the WS2 subgroups. They will primarily help the ICANN organization in interpreting recommendations of the groups where further clarification is needed on how to implement the same. As the next step, an Implementation Assessment Report has recently been published which looks at the various resources and steps needed. The steps are categorized into actions meant for one of the 3; the ICANN Board, Community and the ICANN organization itself. These will be funded by ICANN’s General Operating Fund, the Board and the org.

The report is divided into the following 8 issues: 1) Diversity, 2) Guidelines for Good Faith, 3) Recommendations for a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights, 4) Jurisdiction of Settlement of Dispute Issues, 5) Recommendations for Improving the ICANN Office of the Ombudsman, 6) Recommendations to increase SO/ AC Accountability, 7) Recommendations to increase Staff Accountability and 8) Recommendations to improve ICANN Transparency.

This blog will take a look at the essential human rights related considerations of the report and how the digital rights community can get involved with the effectuation of the recommendations.

Diversity

The core issues concerning the issue of diversity revolve around the need for a uniform definition of the parameters of diversity and a community discussion on the ones already identified; geographic representation, language, gender, age, physical disability, diverse skills and stakeholder constituency. An agreed upon definition of all of these is necessary before its Board approval and application consistently through the various parts of ICANN. In addition, it is also required to formulate a standard template for diversity data collection and report generation. This sub group’s recommendations are estimated to be implemented in 6-18 months. Many of the recommendations need to be analyzed for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as collecting of information relating to disability. For now, the GDPR is only referenced with no further details on how steps considered will either comply or contrast the law.

Good faith Guidelines

The Empowered Community (EC) which includes all the Supporting Organizations, At-Large-Advisory-Committee and Government Advisory Council, are called upon to conceptualize guidelines to be followed when individuals from the EC are participating in Board Removal Processes. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.

Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights

Central to the human rights conversation and finally approved, is the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. However the report does not give a specific timeline for its implementation, only mentioning that this process will take more than 12 months. The task within this is to establish practices of how the core value of respecting human rights will be balanced with other core values while developing ICANN policies and execution of its operations. All policy development processes, reviews, Cross Community Working Group recommendations will need a framework to consider and incorporate human rights, in tandem with the Framework of Interpretation. It will also have to be shown that policies and recommendations sent to the Board have factored in the FOI.

Transparency

The recommendations focus on the following four key areas as listed below:
1. Improving ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP).
2. Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with Governments.
3. Improving Transparency of Board Deliberations.
4. Improving ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistleblower Protection).

The bulk of the burden for implementation is put on ICANN org with the community providing oversight and ensuring ICANN lives up to its commitments under various policies and laws. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.

How the ICANN community can contribute to this work

This is a defining moment on the future of ICANN and there are great opportunities for the ICANN multistakeholder community to continue shaping the future of the Internet. Some of the envisioned actions by the community include:

monitoring and assessing the performance of the various ICANN bodies, and acting on the recommendations that emerge from those accountability processes. This will only be done through collaborative formulation of processes and procedures for PDPS, CCWGs etc to incorporate HR considerations and subsequently implementation of the best practices suggested for improving SO/ACs accountability and transparency;
conducting diversity assessments to inform objectives and strategies for diversity criteria;
supporting contracted parties through legal advice for change in their agreements when it comes to choice of law and venue recommendations;
contributing to conversations where the Ombudsman can expand his/her involvement that go beyond current jurisdiction and authority

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/article-19-akriti-bopanna-and-ephraim-percy-kenyanito-december-16-2019-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments

ICANN 61 Readout

Admin — 2018-05-05T09:18:03Z

Akriti Bopanna attended an ICANN61 Readout session on the 19th of April at the International Institute of Information Technology at Electronic City in Bengaluru.

Click to read the agenda here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-61-readout

DIDP Request #30 - Employee remuneration structure at ICANN

Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna — 2018-08-24T06:57:39Z

We have requested ICANN to disclose the employee pay structure at ICANN with specific enquiries about the payment across the institutional hierarchy, gender, and region.

We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the income of each employee based on the following grounds. We had hoped this information will increase ICANN's transparency regarding their remuneration policies however ths was not the case, they either referred to their earlier documents who do not have concrete information or stated that the relevant documents were not in their possession. Their response to the respective questions were:

Average salary across designations

ICANN responded by referring to their FY18 Remuneration Practices document which states, “ICANN uses a global compensation expert consulting firm to provide comprehensive benchmarking market data (currently Willis Towers Watson, Mercer and Radford). The market study is conducted before the salary review process. Estimates of potential compensation adjustments typically are made during the budgeting process based on current market data. The budget is then approved as part of ICANN’s overall budget planning process.”

Average salary for female and male employees

ICANN responded by saying “ICANN org’s remuneration philosophy and practice is not based upon gender” which is why they said that they have “no documentary information in ICANN org’s possession, custody or control that is responsive to this request.” However, the exact average salaries of female and male employees was not provided nor any information that could that could give us an idea as to whether the remuneration of their employees was in accordance with the above claim.

Bonuses - frequency at which it is given and upon what basis

ICANN responded by referring to “Discretionary At-Risk Component” section in their FY18 Remuneration Practices document which states,”The amount of at-risk pay an individual can earn is based on a combination of both the achievement of goals as well as the behaviors exhibited in achieving those goals… The Board has approved a framework whereby those with ICANN Org are eligible to earn an at-risk payment of up to 20 percent of base compensation as at-risk payment based on role and level in the organization, with certain senior executives eligible for up to 30 percent.” The duration over which the employees are eligible to receive an “at-risk” payment was given to be “twice a year".

Average salary across regions for the same region

ICANN responded by saying,”compensation may vary across the regions based on currency differences, the availability of positions in a given region, market conditions, as well as the type of positions that are available in a given region. “ They also added that they have no documentary information in their possession, custody or control that is responsive to this request.

The request filed by Paul Kurian may be found here. ICANN's response can be read here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann

ICANN Diversity Analysis

akriti — 2018-08-29T11:19:46Z

The by-laws of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) state that it is a non-profit public-benefit corporation which is responsible at the overall level, for the coordination of the “global internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet's unique identifier systems”. As key stakeholders of ICANN are spread across the world, much of the communication discussing the work of ICANN takes place over email. This analysis of the diversity of participation at the ICANN processes, through a study of their mailing lists, was undertaken by Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna.

The by-laws of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) state that it is a non-profit public-benefit corporation which is responsible at the overall level, for the coordination of the “global internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet's unique identifier systems”.^{^[1]}Previously, this was overseen by the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) under a US Government contract but in 2016, the oversight was handed over to ICANN, as a global multi-stakeholder body.^{^[2]} Given the significance of the multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it is imperative that stakeholders continue to question and improve the inclusiveness of its processes. The current blog post seeks to focus on the diversity of participation at the ICANN process.

As stakeholders are spread across the world, much of the communication discussing the work of ICANN takes place over email. Various [or X number of ] mailing lists inform members of ICANN activities and are used for discussions between them from policy advice to organizational building matters. Many of these lists are public and hence can be subscribed to by anyone and also can be viewed by non-members through the archives.

CIS analysed the five most active mailing lists amongst the working group mailing lists from January 2016 to May 2018, namely:

Outreach & Engagement,
Technology,
At-Large Review 2015 - 2019,
IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability, and
Finance & Budget mailing lists.

We looked at the diversity among these active participants by focusing on their gender, stakeholder grouping and region. In order to arrive at the data, we referred to public records such as the Statement of Interests which members have to give to the Generic Names Supporting Organization(GNSO) Council if they want to participate in their working groups. We also used, where available, ICANN Wiki and the LinkedIn profiles of these participants. Given below are some of the observations we made subsequent to surveying the data. We acknowledge that there might be some inadvertent errors made in the categorization of these participants, but are of the opinion that our inference from the data would not be drastically affected by a few errors.

The following findings were observed:

A total of 218 participants were present on the 5 mailing lists that were looked at.
Of these,, 92 were determined to be active participants (participants who had sent more than the median number of mails in their working group) out of which 75 were non-staff members.

Among the active non-staff participants:

Out of the 75 participants, 56 (74.7%) were male and 19 (25.3%) were female.
57.3% were identified to be members of the industry and technological community and 1.3% were identified as government representatives. 8.0% were representatives from Academia, 25.3% represented civil society and the remaining 8.0% were from fields that were uncategorizable with respect to the above, but were related to law and consultancy.
Only 14.7% of the participants were from Asia while the majority belonged to Africa and then North America with 24% and 22.7% participation respectively
Within Asia, we identified only one active participant from China.

Concerns

The vast number of the people participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male constituting three fourth of the participants.
The mailing list are dominated by individuals from industry.. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed.
Only 14.7% of the participants were from Asia, which is concerning since 48.7% of internet users worldwide belong to Asia.^{^[3]}
China which has the world’s largest population of internet users (700 million people)^{^[4]} had only one active participant on these mailing lists.

ICANN being a global multistakeholder organization should ideally have the number of representatives from each region be proportionate to the number of internet users in that region. In addition to this, participation of women on these mailing lists need to increase to ensure that there is inclusive contribution in the functioning of the organization. We did not come across any indication of participation of individuals of non binary genders.

^{^[1]} https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/icann

^{^[2]} https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en

^{^[3]} https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

^{^[4]} https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis

DIDP #31 Diversity of employees at ICANN

Akash Sriram — 2018-08-21T09:26:48Z

We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on race and citizenship.

This data is being requested to verify ICANN’s claim of being an equal opportunities employer. ICANN’s employee handbook states that they “...provide equal opportunities and are committed to the principle of equality regardless of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, political opinion or affiliation, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability.” The data on the diversity of employees based on race and nationality of their employees will depict how much they have stuck to their commitment to delivering equal opportunities to personnel in ICANN and potential employees.

The request filed by CIS can be accessed here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann

ICANN Masterclass

Admin — 2019-06-22T03:57:07Z

ICANN organized a masterclass in Bangalore on June 19, 2019.

It was ICANN's first-ever such initiative within civil society to inform and spread awareness about their functioning. The workshop was conducted by Mary Wong who is the Vice President for Strategic Comunications Operations, Planning and Engagement and is a member of the Policy Team performing global policy development work. She was joined by Samiran Gupta who is the Head of India for ICANN. He is the primary representative of ICANN in the country and responsible for all stakeholder engagements here.

Agenda

10.00 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.: Introduction to ICANN and the role of ICANN Org to facilitate the community’s work
10.45 a.m. - 12.00: Tea break
12.00 - 1.30 p.m.: ICANN’s Policy Development Process (will be conducted in an interactive mode to simulate a Policy Development Process working group meeting).
1.30 p.m - 2.30 p.m.: Lunch
2.30 p.m - 3.30 p.m.: The role of Governmental Advisory Committee (India’s GAC-related engagement in specific terms).
3.30 p.m. - 3.45 p.m.: Tea break
3.45 p.m - 4.30 p.m.: Open Q&A session.(Also open so that in case prior segments over-run, we still have some time on hand to complete the agenda comfortably).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass

IANA Transition Stewardship & ICANN Accountability (I)

jyoti — 2015-07-31T14:56:26Z

This paper is the first in a multi-part series, in which we provide a background to the IANA transition and updates on the ensuing processes. An attempt to familiarise people with the issues at stake, this paper will be followed by a second piece that provides an overview of submitted proposals and areas of concern that will need attention moving forward. The series is a work in progress and will be updated as the processes move forward. It is up for public comments and we welcome your feedback.

In developing these papers we have been guided by Kieren McCarthy's writings in The Register, Milton Mueller writings on the Internet Governance Project, Rafik Dammak emails on the mailings lists, the constitutional undertaking argument made in the policy paper authored by Danielle Kehl & David Post for New America Foundation.

Introduction

The 53rd ICANN conference in Buenos Aires was pivotal as it marked the last general meeting before the IANA transition deadline on 30th September, 2015. The multistakeholder process initiated seeks communities to develop transition proposals to be consolidated and reviewed by the the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). The names, number and protocol communities convened at the conference to finalize the components of the transition proposal and to determine the way forward on the transition proposals. The Protocol Parameters (IANA PLAN Working Group) submitted to ICG on 6 January 2015, while the Numbering Resources (CRISP Team) submitted on 15 January 2015. The Domain Names (CWG-Stewardship) submitted its second draft to ICG on 25 June 2015. The ICG had a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires and their proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions is expected to be out for public comment July 31 to September 8, 2015.

Parallelly, the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability offered its first set of proposals for public comment in June 2015 and organised two working sessions at ICANN'53. More recently, the CCWG met in Paris focusing on the proposed community empowerment mechanisms, emerging concerns and progress on issues so far. CIS reserves its comments to the CCWG till the second round of comments expected in July.

This working paper explains the IANA Transition, its history and relevance to management of the Internet. It provides an update on the processes so far, including the submissions by the Indian government and highlights areas of concern that need attention going forward.

How is IANA Transition linked to DNS Management?

The IANA transition presents a significant opportunity for stakeholders to influence the management and governance of the global network. The Domain Name System (DNS), which allows users to locate websites by translating the domain name with corresponding Internet Protocol address, is critical to the functioning of the Internet. The DNS rests on the effective coordination of three critical functions—the allocation of IP Addresses (the numbers function), domain name allocation (the naming function), and protocol parameters standardisation (the protocols function).

History of the ICANN-IANA Functions contract

Initially, these key functions were performed by individuals and public and private institutions. They either came together voluntarily or through a series of agreements and contracts brokered by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and funded by the US government. With the Internet's rapid expansion and in response to concerns raised about its increasing commercialization as a resource, a need was felt for the creation of a formal institution that would take over DNS management. This is how ICANN, a California-based private, non-profit technical coordination body, came at the helm of DNS and related issues. Since then, ICANN has been performing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions under a contract with the NTIA, and is commonly referred to as the IANA Functions Operator.

IANA Functions

In February 2000, the NTIA entered into the first stand-alone IANA Functions HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf"contract[1] with ICANN as the Operator. While the contractual obligations have evolved over time, these are largely administrative and technical in nature including:

(1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters;

(2) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and

(3) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management;

(4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and top-level domains.

ICANN has been performing the IANA functions under this oversight, primarily as NTIA did not want to let go of complete control of DNS management. Another reason was to ensure NTIA's leverage in ensuring that ICANN’s commitments, conditional to its incorporation, were being met and that it was sticking to its administrative and technical role.

Root Zone Management—Entities and Functions Involved

NTIA' s involvement has been controversial particularly in reference to the Root Zone Management function, which allows allows for changes to the HYPERLINK "http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/The Internet Domain Name System Explained for Non-Experts (ENGLISH).pdf"highest level of the DNS namespace[2] by updating the databases that represent that namespace. DNS namespace is defined to be the set of names known as top-level domain names or TLDs which may be at the country level (ccTLDs or generic (gTLDs). This HYPERLINK "https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/2964-controlling-internet-infrastructure/IANA_Paper_No_1_Final.32d31198a3da4e0d859f989306f6d480.pdf"function to maintain the Root was split into two parts[3]—with two separate procurements and two separate contracts. The operational contract for the Primary (“A”) Root Server was awarded to VeriSign, the IANA Functions Contract—was awarded to ICANN.

These contracts created contractual obligations for ICANN as IANA Root Zone Management Function Operator, in co-operation with Verisign as the Root Zone Maintainer and NTIA as the Root Zone Administrator whose authorisation is explicitly required for any requests to be implemented in the root zone. Under this contract, ICANN had responsibility for the technical functions for all three communities under the IANA Functions contract.

ICANN also had policy making functions for the names community such as developing HYPERLINK "https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files"rules and procedures and policies under HYPERLINK "https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files"which any changes to the Root Zone File[4] were to be proposed, including the policies for adding new TLDs to the system. The policy making of numbers and protocols is with IETF and RIRs respectively. HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf"NTIA role in root zone management[5] is clerical and judgment free with regards to content. It authorizes implementation of requests after verifying whether procedures and policies are being followed.

This contract was subject to extension by mutual agreement and failure of complying with predefined commitments could result in the re-opening of the contract to another entity through a Request For Proposal (RFP). In fact, in 2011 HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/11102011_solicitation.pdf"NTIA issued a RFP pursuant to ICANN HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/11102011_solicitation.pdf"'HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/11102011_solicitation.pdf"s Conflict of Interest Policy.[6]

Why is this oversight needed?

The role of the Administrator becomes critical for ensuring the security and operation of the Internet with the Root Zone serving as the directory of critical resources. In December 2014, HYPERLINK "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/30/confidential_information_exposed_over_300_times_in_icann_security_snafu/"a report revealed 300 incidents of internal security breaches[7] some of which were related to the Centralized Zone Data System (CZDS) – where the internet core root zone files are mirrored and the WHOIS portal. In view of the IANA transition and given ICANN's critical role in maintaining the Internet infrastructure, the question which arises is if NTIA will let go of its Administrator role then which body should succeed it?

Transition announcement and launch of process

On 14 March 2014, the NTIA HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions"announced[8] “its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community”. These key Internet domain name functions refer to the IANA functions. For this purpose, the NTIA HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions"asked[9] the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene a global multistakeholder process to develop a transition proposal which has broad community support and addresses the following four principles:

Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and
Maintain the openness of the Internet.

The transition process has been split according to the three main communities naming, numbers and protocols.

Structure of the Transition Processes

ICANN performs both technical functions and policy-making functions. The technical functions are known as IANA functions and these are performed by ICANN are for all three communities.

I. Naming function: ICANN performs technical and policy-making for the names community. The technical functions are known as IANA functions and the policy-making functions relates to their role in deciding whether .xxx or .sucks should be allowed amongst other issues. There are two parallel streams of work focusing on the naming community that are crucial to completing the transition. The first, Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions will enable NTIA to transition out of its role in the DNS. Therefore, accountability of IANA functions is the responsibility of the CWG and accountability of policy-making functions is outside its scope. CWG has submitted its second draft to the ICG.

The second, Cross-Community Working Group on Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) is identifying necessary reforms to ICANN’s bylaws and processes to enhance the organization’s accountability to the global community post-transition. Therefore accountability of IANA functions is outside the scope of the CCWG. The CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability offered its first set of proposals for public comment in June 2015.

II. Numbers function: ICANN performs only technical functions for the numbers community. The policy-making functions for numbers are performed by RIRs. CRISP is focusing on the IANA functions for numbers and has submitted their proposal to the ICG earlier this year.

III. Protocols function: ICANN performs only technical functions for the protocols community. The policy-making functions for protocols are performed by IETF. IETF-WG is focusing on the IANA functions for protocols and has submitted their proposal to the ICG earlier this year.

Role of ICG

After receiving the proposals from all three communities the ICG must combine these proposals into a consolidated transition proposal and then seek public comment on all aspects of the plan. ICG’s role is crucial, because it must build a public record for the NTIA on how the three customer group submissions tie together in a manner that ensures NTIA’s HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions"criteria[10] are met and institutionalized over the long term. Further, ICG's final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability based on the CCWG-Accountability proposal.

NTIA Leverage

Reprocurement of the IANA contract is HYPERLINK "http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/"essential for ICANN HYPERLINK "http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/"'HYPERLINK "http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/"s HYPERLINK "http://www.newamerica.org/oti/controlling-internet-infrastructure/" legitimacy[11] in the DNS ecosystem and the authority to reopen the contract and in keeping the policy and operational functions separate meant that, NTIA could simply direct VeriSign to follow policy directives being issued from the entity replacing ICANN if they were deemed to be not complying. This worked as an effective leverage for ICANN complying to their commitments even if it is difficult to determine how this oversight was exercised. Perceptually, this has been interpreted as a broad overreach particularly, in the context of issues of sovereignty associated with ccTLDs and the gTLDs in their influence in shaping markets. However, it is important to bear in mind that the NTIA authorization comes after the operator, ICANN—has validated the request and does not deal with the substance of the request rather focuses merely on compliance with outlined procedure.

NTIA's role in the transition process

NTIA in its HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_second_quarterly_iana_report_05.07.15.pdf"Second Quarterly Report to the Congress[12] for the period of February 1-March 31, 2015 has outlined some clarifications on the process ahead. It confirmed the flexibility of extending the contract or reducing the time period for renewal, based on community decision. The report also specified that the NTIA would consider a proposal only if it has been developed in consultation with the multi-stakeholder community. The transition proposal should have broad community support and does not seek replacement of NTIA's role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Further the proposal should maintain security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS, the openness of the Internet and must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. NTIA will only review a comprehensive plan that includes all these elements.

Once the communities develop and ICG submits a consolidated proposal, NTIA will ensure that the proposal has been adequately “stress tested” to ensure the continued stability and security of the DNS. NTIA also added that any proposed processes or structures that have been tested to see if they work, prior to the submission—will be taken into consideration in NTIA's review. The report clarified that NTIA will review and assess the changes made or proposed to enhance ICANN’s accountability before initiating the transition.

Prior to ICANN'53, Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator HYPERLINK "http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-meeting-argentina"has posed some questions for consideration[13] by the communities prior to the completion of the transition plan. The issues and questions related to CCWG-Accountability draft are outlined below:

Proposed new or modified community empowerment tools—how can the CCWG ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do these new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?
Proposed membership model for community empowerment—have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has CCWG designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out?
Has CCWG developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature?
Suggestions on improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP) that has been criticized for its lack of accountability—how does the CCWG proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP?
In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the CCWG consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard?
The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board—has the CCWG considered accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?
NTIA has also asked the CCWG to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future.
Has the CCWG identified and addressed issues of implementation so that the community and ICANN can implement the plan as expeditiously as possible once NTIA has reviewed and accepted it.

NTIA has also sought community’s input on timing to finalize and implement the transition plan if it were approved. The Buenos Aires meeting became a crucial point in the transtion process as following the meeting, NTIA will need to make a determination on extending its current contract with ICANN. Keeping in mind that the community and ICANN will need to implement all work items identified by the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability as prerequisites for the transition before the contract can end, the community’s input is critical.

NTIA's legal standing

On 25th February, 2015 the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation on 'Preserving the Multi-stakeholder Model of Internet Governance'[14] heard from NTIA head Larry Strickling, Ambassador Gross and Fadi Chehade. The hearing sought to plug any existing legal loopholes, and tighten its administrative, technical, financial, public policy, and political oversight over the entire process no matter which entity takes up the NTIA function. The most important takeaway from this Congressional hearing came from Larry Strickling’s testimony[15] who stated that NTIA has no legal or statutory responsibility to manage the DNS.

If the NTIA does not have the legal responsibility to act, and its role was temporary; on what basis is the NTIA driving the current IANA Transition process without the requisite legal authority or Congressional mandate? Historically, the NTIA oversight, effectively devised as a leverage for ICANN fulfilling its commitments have not been open to discussion. HYPERLINK "http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/pdfnOquQlhsmM.pdf"Concerns have also been raised[16] on the lack of engagement with non-US governments, organizations and persons prior to initiating or defining the scope and conditions of the transition. Therefore, any IANA transition plan must consider this lack of consultation, develop a multi-stakeholder process as the way forward—even if the NTIA wants to approve the final transition plan.

Need to strengthen Diversity Principle

Following submissions by various stakeholders raising concerns regarding developing world participation, representation and lack of multilingualism in the transition process—the Diversity Principle was included by ICANN in the Revised Proposal of 6 June 2014. Given that representatives from developing countries as well as from stakeholder communities outside of the ICANN community are unable to productively involve themselves in such processes because of lack of multilingualism or unfamiliarity with its way of functioning merely mentioning diversity as a principle is not adequate to ensure abundant participation. As CIS has pointed out[17] before issues have been raised about the domination by North American or European entities which results in undemocratic, unrepresentative and non-transparent decision-making in such processes. Accordingly, all the discussions in the process should be translated into multiple native languages of participants in situ, so that everyone participating in the process can understand what is going on. Adequate time must be given for the discussion issues to be translated and circulated widely amongst all stakeholders of the world, before a decision is taken or a proposal is framed. This was a concern raised in the recent CCWG proposal which was extended as many communities did not have translated texts or adequate time to participate.

Representation of the global multistakeholder community in ICG

Currently, the Co-ordination Group includes representatives from ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, gTLD registries, GAC, ICC/BASIS, IAB, IETF, ISOC, NRO, RSSAC and SSAC. Most of these representatives belong to the ICANN community, and is not representative of the global multistakeholder community including governments. This is not representative of even a multistakeholder model which the US HYPERLINK "http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design"g HYPERLINK "http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design"ov HYPERLINK "http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design"ernment HYPERLINK "http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design"has announced[18] for the transition; nor in the multistakeholder participation spirit of NETmundial. Adequate number of seats on the Committee must be granted to each stakeholder so that they can each coordinate discussions within their own communities and ensure wider and more inclusive participation.

ICANN's role in the transition process

Another issue of concern in the pre-transition process has been ICANN having been charged with facilitating this transition process. This decision calls to question the legitimacy of the process given that the suggestions from the proposals envision a more permanent role for ICANN in DNS management. As Kieren McCarthy has pointed out [19]ICANN has taken several steps to retain the balance of power in managing these functions which have seen considerable pushback from the community. These include an attempt to control the process by announcing two separate processes[20] – one looking into the IANA transition, and a second at its own accountability improvements – while insisting the two were not related. That effort was beaten down[21] after an unprecedented letter by the leaders of every one of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees that said the two processes must be connected.

Next, ICANN was accused of stacking the deck[22] by purposefully excluding groups skeptical of ICANN’s efforts, and by trying to give ICANN's chairman the right to personally select the members of the group that would decide the final proposal. That was also beaten back. ICANN staff also produced a "scoping document"[23], that pre-empt any discussion of structural separation and once again community pushback forced a backtrack.[24]

These concerns garner more urgency given recent developments with the community working HYPERLINK "http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html"groups[25] and ICANN divisive view of the long-term role of ICANN in DNS management. Further, given HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwbYljtNyI#t=1164"ICANNHYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwbYljtNyI#t=1164" HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwbYljtNyI#t=1164"President Chehade’s comments that the CWG is not doing its job[26], is populated with people who do not know anything and the “IANA process needs to be left alone as much as possible”. Fadi also specified that ICANN had begun the formal process of initiating a direct contract with VeriSign to request and authorise changes to be implemented by VeriSign. While ICANN may see itself without oversight in this relationship with VeriSign, it is imperative that proposals bear this plausible outcome in mind and put forth suggestions to counter this.

The HYPERLINK "http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html"update from IETF on the ongoing negotiation with ICANN on their proposal[27] related to protocol parameters has also flagged that ICANN is unwilling to cede to any text which would suggest ICANN relinquishing its role in the operations of protocol parameters to a subsequent operator, should the circumstances demand this. ICANN has stated that agreeing to such text now would possibly put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA. Finally, HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/arunmsukumar/status/603952197186035712"ICANN HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/arunmsukumar/status/603952197186035712"Board Member, Markus Kummer[28] stated that if ICANN was to not approve any aspect of the proposal this would hinder the consensus and therefore, the transition would not be able to move forward.

ICANN has been designated the convenor role by the US government on basis of its unique position as the current IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS. However it is this unique position itself which creates a conflict of interest as in the role of contractor of IANA functions, ICANN has an interest in the outcome of the process being conducive to ICANN. In other words, there exists a potential for abuse of the process by ICANN, which may tend to steer the process towards an outcome favourable to itself.

Therefore there exists a strong rationale for defining the limitations of the role of ICANN as convenor. The community has suggested that ICANN should limit its role to merely facilitating discussions and not extend it to reviewing or commenting on emerging proposals from the process. Additional safeguards need to be put in place to avoid conflicts of interest or appearance of conflicts of interest. ICANN should further not compile comments on drafts to create a revised draft at any stage of the process. Additionally, ICANN staff must not be allowed to be a part of any group or committee which facilitates or co-ordinates the discussion regarding IANA transition.

How is the Obama Administration and the US Congress playing this?

Even as the issues of separation of ICANN's policy and administrative role remained unsettled, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, NTIA initiated the long due transition of the IANA contract oversight to a global, private, non-governmental multi-stakeholder institution on March 14, 2014. This announcement immediately raised questions from Congress on whether the transition decision was dictated by technical considerations or in response to political motives, and if the Obama Administration had the authority to commence such a transition unilaterally, without prior open stakeholder consultations. Republican HYPERLINK "http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-internet-icann-idUSKBN0OI2IJ20150602"lawmakers have raised concerns about the IANA transition plan [29]worried that it may allow other countries to capture control.

More recently, HYPERLINK "https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2251"Defending Internet Freedom Act[30] has been re-introduced to US Congress. This bill seeks ICANN adopt the recommendations of three internet community groups, about the transition of power, before the US government relinquishes control of the IANA contract. The bill also seeks ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains be granted to US government and that ICANN submit itself to the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a legislation similar to the RTI in India, so that its records and other information gain some degree of public access.It has also been asserted by ICANN that neither NTIA nor the US Congress will approve any transition plan which leaves open the possibility of non-US IANA Functions Operator in the future.

Funding of the transition

The Obama administration is also HYPERLINK "http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/house-bill-blocks-internet-naming-oversight-handoff/141393"fighting a Republican-backed Commerce, Justice, Science, and HYPERLINK "http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/house-bill-blocks-internet-naming-oversight-handoff/141393"Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2578)[31] which seeks to block NTIA funding the IANA transition. One provision of this bill restricts NTIA from using appropriated dollars for IANA stewardship transition till the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2015 also the base period of the contact in function. This peculiar proviso in the Omnibus spending bill actually implies that Congress believes that the IANA Transition should be delayed with proper deliberation, and not be rushed as ICANN and NTIA are inclined to.

The IANA Transition cannot take place in violation of US Federal Law that has defunded it within a stipulated time-window. At the Congressional Internet Caucus in January 2015, NTIA head Lawrence Strickling clarified that NTIA will “not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions...” or “to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file...”. This implicitly establishes that the IANA contract will be extended, and Strickling confirmed that there was no hard deadline for the transition.

DOTCOM Act

The Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee HYPERLINK "http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/communications-and-technology-subcommittee-vote-dotcom-act"amended the DOTCOM Act[32], a bill which, in earlier drafts, would have halted the IANA functions transition process for up to a year pending US Congressional approval. The bill in its earlier version represented unilateral governmental interference in the multistakeholder process. The new bill reflects a much deeper understanding of, and confidence in, the significant amount of work that the global multistakeholder community has undertaken in planning both for the transition of IANA functions oversight and for the increased accountability of ICANN. The amended DOTCOM Act would call for the NTIA to certify – as a part of a proposed GAO report on the transition – that “the required changes to ICANN’s by-laws contained in the final report of ICANN’s Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and the changes to ICANN’s bylaws required by ICANN’s IANA have been implemented.” The bill enjoys immense bipartisan support[33], and is being lauded as a prudent and necessary step for ensuring the success of the IANA transition.

[1] IANA Functions Contract <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf> accessed 15th June 2015

[2] Daniel Karrenberg, The Internet Domain Name System Explained For Nonexperts <http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/The%20Internet%20Domain%20Name%20System%20Explained%20for%20Non-Experts%20(ENGLISH).pdf> accessed 15 June 2015

[3] David Post and Danielle Kehl, Controlling Internet Infrastructure The “IANA Transition” And Why It Matters For The Future Of The Internet, Part I (1st edn, Open Technology Institute 2015) <https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/2964-controlling-internet-infrastructure/IANA_Paper_No_1_Final.32d31198a3da4e0d859f989306f6d480.pdf> accessed 10 June 2015.

[4] Iana.org, 'IANA — Root Files' (2015) <https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files> accessed 11 June 2015.

[5] 'NTIA's Role In Root Zone Management' (2014). <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf> accessed 15 June 2015.

[6] Contract ( 2011) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/11102011_solicitation.pdf> accessed 10 June 2015.

[7] Kieren McCarthy, 'Confidential Information Exposed Over 300 Times In ICANN Security Snafu' The Register (2015) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/30/confidential_information_exposed_over_300_times_in_icann_security_snafu/> accessed 15 June 2015.

[8] NTIA, ‘NTIA Announces Intent To Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions’ (2014) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> accessed 15 June 2015.

[9] NTIA, ‘NTIA Announces Intent To Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions’ (2014) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> accessed 15 June 2015.

[10] NTIA, ‘NTIA Announces Intent To Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions’ (2014) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> accessed 15 June 2015.

[11] David Post and Danielle Kehl, Controlling Internet Infrastructure The “IANA Transition” And Why It Matters For The Future Of The Internet, Part I (1st edn, Open Technology Institute 2015) <https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/2964-controlling-internet-infrastructure/IANA_Paper_No_1_Final.32d31198a3da4e0d859f989306f6d480.pdf> accessed 10 June 2015.

[12] National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 'REPORT ON THE TRANSITION OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY (IANA) FUNCTIONS' (NTIA 2015) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_second_quarterly_iana_report_05.07.15.pdf> accessed 10 July 2015.

[13] Lawrence Strickling, 'Stakeholder Proposals To Come Together At ICANN Meeting In Argentina' <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-meeting-argentina> accessed 19 June 2015.

[14] Philip Corwin, 'NTIA Says Cromnibus Bars IANA Transition During Current Contract Term' <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150127_ntia_cromnibus_bars_iana_transition_during_current_contract_term/> accessed 10 June 2015.

[15] Sophia Bekele, '"No Legal Basis For IANA Transition": A Post-Mortem Analysis Of Senate Committee Hearing' <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150309_no_legal_basis_for_iana_transition_post_mortem_senate_hearing/> accessed 9 June 2015.

[16] Comments On The IANA Transition And ICANN Accountability Just Net Coalition (2015) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/pdfnOquQlhsmM.pdf> accessed 12 June 2015.

[17] The Centre for Internet and Society, 'IANA Transition: Suggestions For Process Design' (2014) <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design> accessed 9 June 2015.

[18] The Centre for Internet and Society, 'IANA Transition: Suggestions For Process Design' (2014) <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design> accessed 9 June 2015.

[19] Kieren McCarthy, 'Let It Go, Let It Go: How Global DNS Could Survive In The Frozen Lands Outside US Control Public Comments On Revised IANA Transition Plan' The Register (2015) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/iana_icann_latest/> accessed 15 June 2015.

[20] Icann.org, 'Resources - ICANN' (2014) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> accessed 13 June 2015.

[21] <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-chehade-to-soac-et-al-18sep14-en.pdf> accessed 10 June 2015.

[22] Richard Forno, '[Infowarrior] - Internet Power Grab: The Duplicity Of ICANN' (Mail-archive.com, 2015) <https://www.mail-archive.com/infowarrior@attrition.org/msg12578.html> accessed 10 June 2015.

[23] ICANN, 'Scoping Document' (2014) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf> accessed 9 June 2015.

[24] Milton Mueller, 'ICANN: Anything That Doesn’T Give IANA To Me Is Out Of Scope |' (Internetgovernance.org, 2014) <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/> accessed 12 June 2015.

[25] Andrew Sullivan, '[Ianaplan] Update On IANA Transition & Negotiations With ICANN' (Ietf.org, 2015) <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> accessed 14 June 2015.

[26] DNA Member Breakfast With Fadi Chehadé (2015-02-11) (The Domain Name Association 2015).

[27] Andrew Sullivan, '[Ianaplan] Update On IANA Transition & Negotiations With ICANN' (Ietf.org, 2015) <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> accessed 14 June 2015.

[28] Mobile.twitter.com, 'Twitter' (2015) <https://mobile.twitter.com/arunmsukumar/status/603952197186035712> accessed 12 June 2015.

[29] Alina Selyukh, 'U.S. Plan To Cede Internet Domain Control On Track: ICANN Head' Reuters (2015) <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-internet-icann-idUSKBN0OI2IJ20150602> accessed 15 June 2015.

[30] 114th Congress, 'H.R.2251 - Defending Internet Freedom Act Of 2015' (2015).

[31] John Eggerton, 'House Bill Blocks Internet Naming Oversight Handoff: White House Opposes Legislation' Broadcasting & Cable (2015) <http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/house-bill-blocks-internet-naming-oversight-handoff/141393> accessed 9 June 2015.

[32] Communications And Technology Subcommittee Vote On The DOTCOM Act (2015).

[33] Timothy Wilt, 'DOTCOM Act Breezes Through Committee' Digital Liberty (2015) <http://www.digitalliberty.net/dotcom-act-breezes-committee-a319> accessed 22 June 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transitition-stewardship-icann-accountability-1

Comments from the Centre for Internet and Society on Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement

vidushi — 2017-06-06T13:35:53Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement.

With inputs from Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash

CIS would like to express its strong opposition to the proposed renewal. This is for three primary reasons:

Inconsistency with ICANN’s core values

It is important to consider the proposed renewal in light of two Core Values which are meant to guide the decisions and actions of ICANN.

Section 1.2.(b)(iii) of the Bylaws contemplates ICANN’s responsibility to, “ Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the DNS market;” and S ection 1.2(b)(iv) envisages, “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;”.

The presumptive renewal of the .NET Registry agreement precludes an open tender, thereby significantly undermining competition in the DNS market. It ignores the public interest consideration, as the absence of competitive pressure on the contract also means the absence of pressure to lower user costs.

Historical accident

Verisign’s operations over .NET is a historical accident; one that does not justify its collection of .NET revenues in perpetuity. Policies for Contractual Compliance of Existing Registries was approved in 2007 to include presumptive renewal. However, during the deliberations in that Policy Development Process, there was significant objection to presumption of renewal of registry contracts; with constituencies and individuals pointing out that such renewal was blatantly anti competitive, and allowed for presumption to prevail even in the case of material breaches.

The proposed agreement contemplates using a portion of Registry Level
Transaction Fees to create a “special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission for these stakeholders.” This form of tokenism to the global south will do little to achieve meaningful participation and diversity of civil society. .NET should instead, be opened to a competitive bid and open tender, in order to encourage innovators from around the world to benefit from it.

Irregularity of contract

The argument that the proposed changes are to bring the contract in line with other gTLD registry agreements doesn't hold because this contract is in itself completely irregular: it was not entered into after a competitive process that other gTLD registry agreements are subject to; and it is not subject to the price sensitivity that other contracts are either.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-from-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-on-renewal-of-net-registry-agreement

Revolving Door Analysis: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

Lakshmi Venkataraman — 2014-12-16T05:44:40Z

The IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) is the body that will accept and coordinate different proposals for IANA transition. It will make the global Internet community's final proposal for transition to the NTIA. Lakshmi Venkataraman finds that a majority of the ICG's membership have had longstanding affiliations with I-star organisations. What will this mean for IANA transition?

Following the NTIA’s announcement of its decision to not renew the IANA Functions contract, ICANN instituted a process in search of an alternative oversight mechanism. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), comprising 30 individuals, is the body set up to accept and coordinate proposals for IANA transition, and after this, to make a final proposal to the NTIA. ICANN claims that the ICG comprises individuals representing 13 different communities and the interests of different stakeholders (direct and indirect), including those of governments, technical community and non-commercial users.

The communities represented in the ICG are as follows:

ALAC – At-Large Advisory Committee to ICANN
ASO – Policy making body of ICANN w.r.t. IP addresses
ccNSO – Policy making body of ICANN w.r.t. ccTLDs
GNSO – Makes recommendations on gTLDs to the ICANN Board
IAB – Deals with technical and engineering aspects of the ISOC
IETF – Deals with the development of standards under the ISOC
NRO – Policy Advisor to ICANN w.r.t. IP addresses
SSAC – Advisory body of ICANN, w.r.t. security of naming systems
RSSAC – Advisory body of ICANN, w.r.t. operation, security and integrity of the Internet’s Root Server System

Now, the ICG has been set up to devise and present to the NTIA, an IANA transition proposal that incorporates views and concerns of diverse stakeholders of the global Internet community. The composition of the ICG is, for this purpose, an indicator of the nature of proposals that may find final favour.

At CIS, we examined the affiliations of ICG members with this in mind. Our assumptions are two-fold: (1) greater the diversity in ICG membership, greater the chance of diverse views being heard and represented, including those departing from the status quo; (2) conversely, if the ICG members have histories of affiliations to existing centres of power in global Internet governance (say, the I* organisations), chances of status quo being maintained are greater.

Our findings are presented in tabular format below:

(X – Unknown number of years spent in the organization)

I-star Organisation ________________ Name of person	ICANN	IETF	IAB	W3C	ISOC	AfriNIC	ARIN	APNIC	LACNIC	RIPE-NCC
Patrik Faltstrom	3	X	X	-	3	-	-	-	-	-
Paul Wilson	X	-	-	-	X	-	-	16	-	-
Lynn St. Amour	-	-	13	-	16	-	-	-	-	-
Jari Arkko	-	8	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Keith Davidson	4	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	-	-
Demi Getschko	4	-	-	-	11	-	-	-	-	-
Russell Housley	-	6	1.5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Xiaodong Lee	2	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Elise Gerich	4	-	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Hartmut Glaser	14	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-
Wolf Ulrich Knobben	4	-	-	-	X	-	-	-	-	-
Russ Mundy	X	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Kuo-Wei Wu	15	-	-	-	-	-	-	11	-	-
Narelle Clark	-	-	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	-
Daniel Karrenberg	-	-	-	-	6	-	-	-	-	-
Mohamed el Bashir	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Martin Boyle	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Keith Drazek	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Jean Jacques Subrenat	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
James Bladel	†	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

(† - To serve on the GNSO Council from November 2015.)

As you will have noticed, 20 out of 30 ICG members (66.67%) have occupied positions in seemingly different organizations, but in actuality, these are organisations with very close links to each other. We see not 13, but 2 organizations that all the communities seem to be affiliated to, i.e., ICANN and ISOC. It seems all too ironic that the body that has been allocated the task of the IANA functions’ transition, in line with the ‘multi-stakeholder’ model, is itself representative of only 2 organizations.

A prodding into the histories of these 30 members from ‘varied’ backgrounds reveals that most of them have rotationally served in the I-Star organizations. A close reading of their bio-data (from their ICANN and LinkedIn pages) reveals our findings on the number of years several of the members of the IANA Stewardship Transition Cooperation Group, have spent at the I-Star organizations.

It is not rocket science to recognise the power the I* organisations have over Internet governance today. Indeed, ICANN tells us that the I* run the Internet. They are the leaders of the status quo.

But the IANA transition is anything but an affirmation of the status quo. Stakeholders and participants in IANA transition (in the CWG, CRISP and IETF) have raised serious concerns about the desirability of IANA continuing within ICANN, and about ICANN’s (inadequate) accountability and transparency. True, ICANN has instituted processes to enable discussion on these issues, and the ICG is part of the process. It is entrusted with the momentous task of shifting from the status quo of the IANA Functions contract to a new mechanism of oversight. Given its composition, an assumption that the ICG may have vested interests in maintaining status quo is not out-of-the-way. In fact, some members of the ICG have previously made statements to the effect that Internet is not broken, and it does not need fixing. This poses a real danger to the IANA transition process and the global Internet community must demand safeguards.

Lakshmi Venkataraman performed the revolving door analysis on the ICG. She is a IV year at NALSAR University of Law and an intern at CIS during December 2014. Geetha Hariharan assisted in writing this post.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ianas-revolving-door

CIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN

Padma Venkataraman — 2017-10-31T02:10:11Z

CIS has been working towards enhancing transparency and accountability at ICANN since 2014. While initial efforts have resulted in ICANN revealing its sources of income in a granular fashion in 2015, we are yet to see this level of transparency become a default approach within ICANN. Here, Padma Venkataraman chronologically maps CIS’ efforts at enhancing financial transparency and accountability at ICANN, while providing an outline of what remains to be done.

With the $135 million sale of .web,^[1] the much protested renewal of the .net agreement^[2] and the continued annual increase in domain name registrations,^[3] among other things, it is no surprise that there are still transparency and accountability concerns within the ICANN Community. CIS, as part of its efforts to examine the functioning of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, has filed many DIDP requests till date, in a bid for greater transparency of the organisation’s sources of revenues.

1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN

- 2014

- 2015

- 2017

2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues

-----

1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN

- 2014

In 2014, CIS’ Sunil Abraham demanded greater financial transparency of ICANN at both the Asia Pacific IGF and the ICANN Open Forum at the IGF. Later that year, CIS was provided with a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue for the financial year 2014, including payments from registries, registrars, sponsors, among others, by ICANN India Head Mr. Samiran Gupta.^[4] This was a big step for CIS and the Internet community, as before this, no details on granular income had ever been publicly divulged by ICANN on request.

However, as no details of historical revenue had been provided, CIS filed a DIDP request in December 2014, seeking financial disclosure of revenues for the years 1999 to 2014, in a detailed manner - similar to the 2014 report that had been provided.^[5] It sought a list of individuals and entities who had contributed to ICANN’s revenues over the mentioned time period.

In its response, ICANN stated that it possessed no documents in the format that CIS had requested, that is, it had no reports that broke down domain name income and revenue received by each legal entity and individual.^[6] It stated that as the data for years preceding 2012 were on a different system, compiling reports of the raw data for these years would be time-consuming and overly burdensome. ICANN denied the request citing this specific provision for non-disclosure of information under the DIDP.^[7]

- 2015

In July 2015, CIS filed a request for disclosure of raw data regarding granular income for the years 1999 to 2014.^[8] ICANN again said that it would be a huge burden ‘to access and review all the raw data for the years 1999 to 2014 in order to identify the raw data applicable to the request’.^[9] However, it mentioned its commitment to preparing detailed reports on a go-forward basis - all of which would be uploaded on its Financials page.^[10]

- 2017

To follow up on ICANN’s commitment to granularity, CIS sought a detailed report on historical data for income and revenue contributions from domain names for FY 2015 and FY 2016 in June 2017.^[11] In its reply, ICANN stated that the Revenue Detail by Source reports for the last two years would be out by end July and that the report for FY 2012 would be out by end September.^[12]

2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues

In 2014, CIS asked for disclosure of a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue and detailed granular income for the years 1999 to 2014. ICANN published the first but cited difficulty in preparing reports of the second. In 2015, CIS again sought detailed reports of historical granular revenue for the same period, and ICANN again denied disclosure claiming that it was burdensome to handle the raw data for those years. However, as ICANN agreed to publish detailed reports for future years, CIS recently asked for publication of reports for the FYs 2012, 2015 and 2016. Reports for these three years were uploaded according to the timeline provided by ICANN.

CIS appreciates ICANN’s cooperation with its requests and is grateful for their efforts to make the reports for FYs 2012 to 2016 available (and on a continued basis). However, it is important that detailed information of historical revenue and income from domain names for the years 1999 to 2014 be made publicly available. It is also crucial that consistent accounting and disclosure practices are adopted and made known to the Community, in order to avoid omissions of statements such as Detail Revenue by Source and Lobbying Disclosures, among many others, in the annual reports - as has evidently happened for the years preceding 2012. This is necessary to maintain financial transparency and accountability, as an organisation’s sources of revenues can inform the dependant Community about why it functions the way it does.

It will also allow more informed discussions about problems that the Community has faced in the past and continues to struggle with. For example, while examining problems such as ineffective market competition or biased screening processes for TLD applicants, among others, this data can be useful in assessing the long-term interests, motives and influences of different parties involved.

^[1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en

^[2] Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the .net Renewal. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf

^[3] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en

^[4] https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014

^[5] DIDP Request no - 20141222-1, 22 December 2014. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2

^[6] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf

^[7] Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure - Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

^[8] DIDP Request no - 20150722-2, 22 July 2015. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues

^[9] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf

^[10] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf; https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en

^[11] DIDP Request No. 20170613-1, 14 June 2017.

^[12] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann