Centre for Internet and Society

DIDP Request #20 - Is Presumptive Renewal of Verisign’s Contracts a Good Thing?

asvatha — 2016-07-30T02:01:59Z

ICANN’s contract agreements with different registries contain a presumptive renewal clause. Unless they voluntarily give up their rights or there is a material breach by the registry operator, their contract with ICANN will be automatically renewed.

See the base registry agreement here.

In light of this, we filed a request asking ICANN for documents that discuss the rationale behind including the presumptive renewal clause. We also asked them for documents specific to the renewal of Verisign (.com and .net domains) and PIR (.org) contracts. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN provided a surprisingly comprehensive response to our request. They provided documents in response to our request and stated the rationale that has been given for including a presumptive renewal clause. According to the response,

“Absent countervailing reasons, there is little public benefit, and some significant potential for disruption, in regular changes of a registry operator. In addition, a significant chance of losing the right to operate the registry after a short period creates adverse incentives to favor short term gain over long term investment.”

ICANN explains that the contracts have been drawn such that they balance the concerns above with the ability to replace a registry that doesn’t serve the community as it is obliged to do. The response also offers links to various documents substantiating this rationale.

We were provided an effective answer to our second question as well. ICANN’s response links us to various documents for the 2001, 2006 and 2012 renewals of Verisign’s contract for the .com domain. This includes a summary of the 2012 renewal, public comments for all three renewals and the proposed agreements.

For the .net domain, a presumptive renewal clause was not included in the 2001 Verisign contract which opened up the process to select an operator in 2005. ICANN chose to continue its relationship with Verisign and included the clause. The documents relevant to the 2011 renewal of the contracts have been provided.

After Verisign relinquished its rights over the .org domain in 2001, ICANN chose the Public Internet Society (PIR) to operate the domain. While there was no presumptive renewal clause in 2002, documents relevant to the 2006 and 2013 renewals have been provided.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing

DIDP Request #21 - ICANN’s Relationship with the RIRs

asvatha — 2016-07-30T03:42:36Z

At CIS, we wanted a clearer understanding of ICANN’s relationship with the 5 internet registries. The large amount contributed by the RIRs to ICANN’s funding lead us to question the nature of this relationship as well as the payment. We wrote to ICANN asking them for these details.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s response linked us to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) which represents the 5 RIRs. The MoU replaces the ones signed by ICANN and the individual RIRs. The response also links us to a series of letters written by the NRO to ICANN reaffirming their commitment to the MoU. Interestingly, the MoU does not mention anything about payments or monetary contributions.

In response to the second part of our request focusing on their financial relationship, ICANN gave us the same information as they did earlier. However, as pointed out in this post, that information is either incomplete or inaccurate. Further, they reject the idea that providing anything more than the audited financial reports is necessary for public benefit. According to them, “the burden of compiling the requested documentary information from 2000 to the present would require ICANN to expend a tremendous amount of time and resources.” Therefore, they classified our request as falling under this condition 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.”

We fail to see how an organization like ICANN does not already have its receipts and documentation in order. If they do, it would not be burdensome to publish them and if they don’t, well, that’s worrying for a lot of different reasons.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs

DIDP Request #22 - Reconsideration Requests from Parties affected by ICANN Action

asvatha — 2016-07-30T03:52:01Z

According to ICANN by-laws, ICANN has the responsibility to answer to reconsideration requests filed by those directly affected by its actions.

See ICANN bye-laws here

The board governance committee must submit an annual report to the board containing the following information (paraphrased):

Number and nature of Reconsideration Requests received including an identification of whether they were dismissed, acted upon or are pending.
If pending, the length of time and explanation if they have been pending for more than 90 days.
Explanation of other mechanisms ICANN has made available to ensure its accountability to those directly affected by its actions.

CIS requested copies of documents containing all this information. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN surmised that all the information we sought can be found in their annual reports. ICANN linked us to those: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action

DIDP Request #23 - ICANN does not Know how Diverse its Comment Section Is

asvatha — 2016-07-30T05:55:15Z

While researching ICANN and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), we came across a diversity analysis report of a public comment section.

See ICG report here.

We requested ICANN for similar reports on the ICANN public comment section. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN stated that they do not conduct diversity analysis on their comment sections. This is a shame, given that the one from ICG was so informative, clear and concise. Instead they provided us with links to reports and analyses of the different topics that were up for comments and an annual report on public comments.

ICANN’s public comments section is one of the important ways in which different stakeholders and community members get involved with the organization. A diversity analysis of this section for different topics could help in informing the public about which parts of the world actually get involved in ICANN through this mechanism We suggest that ICANN make it a regular part of their report.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is

DIDP Request #25 - Curbing Sexual Harassment at ICANN

asvatha — 2016-07-30T06:14:29Z

Markus Kummer at Public Forum 2 mentioned that ICANN has standards of behavior regarding sexual harassment that are applicable for its staff.

Marrakech Public Forum 2

In light of that statement, CIS requested ICANN to publish the following information:

Information about the individual or organization conducting ICANN’s sexual harassment training
Materials used during this training
ICANN’s internal sexual harassment policy

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s response answered our questions adequately. The organization conducting their sexual harassment training is NAVEX Global. It is an interactive online training and as such, all materials are within that platform. Besides, ICANN could not publish these materials as it would be an infringement of NAVEX Global’s intellectual property right. ICANN also attached with the response, their internal sexual harassment policy.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request (and the attached policy document) may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann

DIDP Request #27 - On ICANN’s support to new gTLD Applicants

asvatha — 2016-07-30T08:03:18Z

In order to promote access to the New gTLD Program in developing regions, ICANN set up the New gTLD Applicant Support Program (Program) which seeks to facilitate cooperation between gTLD applicants from developing countries and those willing and able to support them financially (and in kind).

Click for Applicant Support Directory

We requested ICANN for information about this program. Specifically, we asked them for information on:

The number of applicants to the program and the amount received by them;
The basis on which these applicants were selected;
The amount that has been utilized thus far for this program;
Contributions by donors;
What “in kind” support means and includes.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN answered all our questions in a satisfactory manner. There were three applicants to the program. Two of these: Nameshop, and Ummah Digital Ltd, did not meet the eligibility criteria listed in the handbook and therefore only one other applicant, DotKids, received the financial support. Of the USD 2,000,000 set aside, USD 135,000 was awarded to them.

The eligibility criteria is listed in the New gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook and candidates are evaluated by the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP), “which was comprised of five volunteer members from the community with experience in the domain name industry, in managing small businesses, awarding grants, and assisting others on financial matters in developing countries.”

The USD 2,000,000 allotted to this program was set aside by ICANN’s board and as it is not exhausted, no external contributions were sought by ICANN (in cash or in kind). However, ICANN failed to explain what “in kind” contributions would be.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants

DIDP Request #28 - ICANN renews Verisign’s RZM Contract?

asvatha — 2016-07-30T08:10:17Z

Our request to ICANN was related to our (mistaken) assumption that Verisign and ICANN had signed an agreement for Root Zone Maintenance and had recently renewed it. In that context we had asked for information such as documents reflecting the decision making process, copy of the current RZM agreement, public comments and an audit report of Verisign’s RZM functions.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN clarified that it has never been party to the RZM agreement which was made between NTIA and Verisign. According to an ICANN-Verisign joint document, the Root Zone Management Systems allows “ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), Verisign, as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC), as the Root Zone Administrator (RZA).” The only agreement related to this is the one of cooperation between Verisign and the NTIA.

Accordingly, as the role of NTIA is transitioned to the multi-stakeholder community, Verisign and ICANN are working out terms and conditions of their own agreement to facilitate this transition together. In response to NTIA’s request for a proposal for this transition, Verisign and ICANN submitted this document. Besides these, ICANN states that it does not have any documents responsive to our requests.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract