Centre for Internet and Society

DIDP Response

akriti — 2018-08-21T14:36:54Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-response

DIDP Request #29 - Revenue breakdown by source for FY 2017

akriti — 2018-04-26T11:06:16Z

We requested ICANN for financial information they have not yet provided for the period ending June 2017.

ICANN publication of its financial records for 2017 were missing a crucial document which lists down their revenue as per the all the legal entities as sources who contributed to it including Regional Internet Registries, various registrars and their source of origin among other details. We have requested them for this document in order to get a better idea of the how these entities contribute to ICANN.

In response to our DIDP, ICANN notified us that they are in the process of compiling this report for the year ending June 2017 and will publish the same by 31st of May, 2018. Further they remarked that this procedure of making public their revenue by source was developed as part of ICANN’s enhancements to transparency in response to CIS’s earlier DIDP which was submitted in 2015.

The said report will be published on their Financial page within the time frame mentioned.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-29-revenue-breakdown-by-source-for-fy-2017

DIDP #34 On granular detail on ICANN's budget for policy development process

akriti — 2019-07-06T01:23:55Z

ICANN has Advisory Committees which help guide the policy recommendations that the ICANN community develops while its Supporting Organizations are charged with developing policy recommendations for a particular aspect of ICANN's operations. Supporting Organizations are composed of volunteers from the community. ICANN publishes a combined budget for all these bodies under the head of policy development and CIS inquired about the financial resources allocated to each of them specifically.

The ICANN budgets are published for public comment yet the community does not have supporting documents to illustrate how the numbers were estimated or the rationale for allocation of the resources. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to the internal budgeting.

This DIDP is concerned with the policy development budget which, as Stephanie Perrin of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group pointed out, was merely 5% of ICANN’s total budget, a number significantly low for a policy making organization. Thus, the information we request is a detailed breakdown for the budgets for every Advisory Council as well as Supporting Organizations for the previous fiscal year. You can find the attached request here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-34-on-granular-detail-on-icanns-budget-for-policy-development-process

DIDP #33 On ICANN's 2012 gTLD round auction fund

akriti — 2019-07-09T15:51:47Z

This DIDP was filed to inquire about the state of the funds ICANN received from the last gTLD auctions.

In 2012, after years of deliberation ICANN opened the application round for new top level domains and saw over 1930 applications. Since October 2013, delegation of these extensions commenced with it still going on. However, 7 years since the round was open there has been no consensus on how to utilize the funds obtained from the auctions. ICANN until its last meeting was debating on the legal mechanisms/ entities to be created who will decide on the disbursement of these funds. There is no clear information on how those funds have been maintained over the years or its treatments in terms of whether they have been set aside or invested etc. Thus, our DIDP questions ICANN on the status of these funds and can be found here.

The response to the DIDP received on 24th April, 2019 states that that even though the request asked for information, rather than documentation, our question was answered. Reiterating that the DIDP mechanism was developed to provide documentation rather than information. It stated that on 25 October 2018, Resolution 2018.10.25.23 was passed that compels the President and CEO to allocate $36 million to the Reserve Fund. The gTLD auction proceeds were allocated to separate investment accounts, and the interest accruing from the proceedings was in accordance with the new gTLD Investment Policy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund

DIDP #32 On ICANN's Fellowship Program

akriti — 2018-11-12T15:58:30Z

In furtherance of its capacity building functions, ICANN selects Fellows for every public meeting. These are individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities who are trained to become active participants in the ICANN community.

These fellows are assigned a mentor and receive training on ICANN's various areas of engagement. They are also given travel assistance to attend the meeting. While the process and selection criteria is detailed on their website, CIS had some questions as to the execution of these.

Our DIDP questioned the following aspects:

Has any individual received the ICANN Fellowship more than the stated maximum limit of 3 times?
If so, whose decision and what was the justification given for awarding it the 4th time and any other times after that?
What countries did any such individuals belong to?
How many times has the limit of 3 been breached while giving fellowships?
What recording mechanisms are being used to ensure that awarding of these fellowships is kept track of, stored and updated? Are these public or privately made available anywhere?

You can access the request here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program

Comments on Internet Priorities

akriti — 2018-07-07T01:31:45Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comments-on-internet-priorities

CIS Response to ICANN's proposed renewal of .org Registry

akriti — 2019-04-28T02:16:40Z

We thank ICANN for the opportunity to comment on this issue of its proposed renewal of the .org Registry Agreement with the operator, Public Interest Registry (PIR). Supporting much of the community , we too find severe issues with the proposed agreement. These centre around the removal of price caps and imposing obligations being currently deliberated in an ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP).

Presumption of Renewal

CIS has, in the past, questioned the need for a presumption of renewal in registry contracts and it is important to emphasize this within the context of this comment as well. We had, also, asked ICANN for their rationale on having such a practice with reference to their contract with Verisign to which they responded saying:

“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.”

This logic can presumably be applied to the .org registry, as well, yet a re-auction of ,even, legacy top-level domains can only serve to further a fair market, promote competition and ensure that existing registries do not become complacent.

These views were supported in the course of the PDP on Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries in 2006 wherein competition was seen useful for better pricing, operational performance and contributions to registry infrastructure. It was also noted that most service industries incorporate a presumption of competition as opposed to one of renewal.

Download the file to access our full response.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-28-2019-cis-response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry

CIS Report on Social Media

akriti — 2018-04-10T01:43:42Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-report-on-social-media

CIS Comment on ICANN's Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget

akriti — 2019-02-12T23:44:46Z

At the Centre for Internet and Society, we are grateful for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed draft of ICANN’s FY20 Operating Plan and Budget along with their Five-Year Operating Plan Update. As part of the public comment process, ICANN provided a list of documents which can be found here that included their highlights of the budget, the total draft budget for FY20, an operating plan segregated by portfolios, amongst others.

The following are our comments on relevant aspects from the different documents:

There are several significant undertakings which have not found adequate support in this budget, chief among them being the implementation of the ICANN Workstream 2 recommendations on Accountability. The budget accounts for any expenses that arise from WS2 as emanating from its contingency fund which is a mere 4%. Totalling more than 100 recommendations across 8 sub groups, execution of these would require significant expenditure. Ideally, this should have been budgeted for in the FY20 budget considering the final report was submitted in June, 2018 and conversations about its implementation have been carried out ever since. It is wondered if this is because the second Workstream does not have the effectuation of its recommendations in its mandate and hence it is easier for ICANN to be slow on it.^[1] As a member of the community deeply interested in integrating human rights better in ICANN’s various processes, it is concerning to note the glacial pace of the approval of the aforementioned recommendations especially coupled with the lack of funds allocated to it. Further, there is 1 one person assigned to work on the WS2 implementation work which seems insufficient for the magnitude of work involved.^[2]

A topical issue with ICANN currently is its tussle with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and despite the prominence and extent of the legal burden involved, resources to complying with it have not been allocated. Again, it is within the umbrella of the contingency budget.

The Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds is also, presently, developing recommendations on how to distribute the proceeds. It is unclear where these will be funded from since their work is funded by the core ICANN budget yet it is assumed that the recommendations will be funded by the auction proceeds. Almost 7 years after the new gTLD round was open, it is alarming that ICANN has not formulated a plan for the proceeds and are still debating the merits of the entity which would resolve this question, as recently as the last ICANN meeting in October, 2018.

Another important policy development process being undertaken right now is the Working Group who is reviewing the current new gTLD policies to improve the process by proposing changes or new policies. There are no resources in the FY20 budget to implement the changes that will arise from this but only those to support the Working Group activities.

Lastly, the budgets lack information on how much each individual RIR contributes.

Staff costs

ICANN’s internal costs on their personnel have been rising for years and slated to account for more than half their annual budget with an estimated 56% or $76.3 million in the next financial year. The community has been consistent in calling upon them to revise their staff costs with many questioning if the growth in staff is justified.^{^[3]} There was criticism from all quarters such as the GNSO Council who stated that it is “not convinced that the proposed budget funds the policy work it needs to do over the coming year”.^{^[4]} The excessive use of professional service consultants has come under fire too.

As pointed out in a mailing list, in comments on the FY19 budget, every single constituency and stakeholder group remarked that personnel costs presented too high a burden on the budget. One of the suggestions presented by the NCSG was to relocate positions from from the LA headquarters to less expensive countries such as those in Asia. This can be seen from the high increase this budget of $200,000 in operational costs though no clear breakdown of that entails was given.

The view seems to be that ICANN repeatedly chooses to retain higher salaries while reducing funding for the community. This is even more of an issue since there employment remuneration scheme is opaque. In a DIDP I filed enquiring about the average salary across designations, gender, regions and the frequency of bonuses, the response was either to refer to their earlier documents which do not have concrete information or that the relevant documents were not in their possession.^{^[5]}

ICANN Fellowship

The budget of the fellowship has been reduced which is an important initiative to involve individuals in ICANN who cannot afford the cost of flying to the global ICANN meetings. The focus should be not only be on arriving at a suitable figure for the funding but also to ensure that people who either actively contribute or are likely to are supported as opposed to individuals who are already known in this circle.

Again, our attempts at understanding the Fellowship selection were met with resistance from ICANN. In a DIDP filed regarding it with questions such as if anyone had received it more than the maximum limit of thrice and details on the selection criteria, no clarity was provided.^{^[6]}

Lobbying and Sponsorship

At ICANN 63 in Barcelona, I enquired about ICANN’s sponsorship strategies and how the decision making is done with respect to which all events in each region to sponsor and for a comprehensive list of all sponsorship ICANN undertakes and receives. I was told such a document would be published soon but in the 4 months since then, none can be found. It is difficult to comment on the budget for such a team where there is not much information on the work it specifically carries out and the impact of such sponsoring activities. When questioned to someone on their team, I was told that it depends on the needs of each region and events that are significant in such regions. However without public accountability and transparency about these, sponsorship can be seen as a vague heading which could be better spent on community initiatives.

Talking of Transparency, it has also been pointed out that the Information Transparency Initiative has 3 million dollars set aside for its activities in this budget. It sounds positive yet with no deliverables to show in the past 2 years, it is difficult to ascertain the value of the investment in this initiative.

Lobbying activities do not find any mention in the budget and neither do the nature of sponsorship from other entities in terms of whether it is travel and accommodation of personnel or any other kind of institutional sponsorship.

^{^[1]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability

^{^[2]} https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-fy20-17dec18-en.pdf

^{^[3]} http://domainincite.com/22680-community-calls-on-icann-to-cut-staff-spending

^{^[4]} Ibid

^{^[5]}https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann

^{^[6]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-february-8-2019-comment-on-icann-draft-fy-20-operating-plan-and-budget