The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
ICANN Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability
<b>One of the most significant initiatives to improve the accountability of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) commenced in 2014, when the Cross Community Working Group on Accountability was created. Its role was to develop a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community. This resulted in the first Work Stream (WS1) recommendations, which were eventually approved and incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN in 2016. These included a provision expressing the need for a second WS since the first one, done on a tight deadline,did not cover all the requisite issues. Instead WS1 only focused on issues that were needed to complete the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) transition. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the ICANN meeting in March of 2017 in Finland, the second Work Stream (WS2) was launched. The Cross Community Working Group submitted their final report at the end of June 2018 and the purpose of this blog is to look at the main recommendations given and the steps ahead to its implementation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new Workstream was structured into the following 8 independent sub groups as per the topics laid down in the WS1 final report, each headed by a Rapporteur:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. Diversity</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors. (Guidelines for Good Faith)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (HR-FOI)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4. Jurisdiction</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. Office of the Ombuds</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. Supporting Organization/ Advisory Committee Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">7. Staff Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">8. ICANN Transparency</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>1. </b><b><span>DIVERSITY Recommendations </span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub-group on Diversity suggested ways by which ICANN can define, measure, report, support and promote diversity. They proposed 7 key factors to guide all diversity considerations: Language, Gender, Age, Physical Disability, Diverse skills, Geographical representation and stakeholder group. Each charting organization within ICANN is asked to undertake an exercise whereby they publish their diversity obligations on their website, for each level of employment including leadership either under their own charter or ICANN Bylaws. This should be followed by a diversity assessment of their existing structures and consequently used to formulate their diversity objectives/criteria and steps on how to achieve the same along with the timeline to do so. These diversity assessments should be conducted annually and at the very least, every 3 years. ICANN staff has been tasked with developing a mechanism for dealing with complaints arising out of diversity and related issues. Eventually, it is envisioned that ICANN will create a Diversity section on their website where an Annual Diversity Report will be published. All information regarding Diversity should also be published in their Annual Report.</p>
<p>The recommendations leave much upto the organization without establishing specific recruitment policies for equal opportunities. In their 7 parameters, race was left out as a criteria for diversity. The criteria of ‘diverse skills’ is also ambiguous; and within stakeholder group, it would have been more useful to highlight the priority for diversity of opinions within the same stakeholder group. So for example, to have two civil society organizations (CSOs) advocating for contrasting stances as opposed to having many CSO’s supporting one stance. However, these steps should be a good starting point to improve the diversity of an organization which in our earlier research we have found to be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder">neither global nor multistakeholder</a>. In fact, our <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis">recent diversity analysis </a>has shown concerns such as the vast number of the end users participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male. The mailing list where the majority of discussions take place are dominated by individuals from industry bodies. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders, especially geographically (14.7% participation from Asian countries), creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed. Moreover, when we have questioned ICANN’s existing diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship, they <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann">did not give us</a> the figures citing either lack of information or confidentiality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2. </b><b><span>HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION (HR-FOI)</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Framework of Interpretation was developed by the WS2 for ICANN Bylaws relating to Human Rights which clarified that Human Rights are not a Commitment for the organization but is a Core Value. The former being an obligation while the latter are <i>“<span>not necessarily intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s activities</span></i><span>”.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To summarize the FOI, if the applicable law i.e. the law practiced in the jurisdiction where ICANN is operating, does not mandate certain human rights then they do not raise issues under the core value. As such, there can be no enforcement of human rights obligations by ICANN or any other party against any other party. Thus, contingent on the seat of the operations the law can vary though by in large ICANN recognizes and can be guided by significant internationally respected human rights such as those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights was recognized as useful in the process of applying the core value in operations since it discusses corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Building on this, Human Right Impact Assessments (HRIA) with respect to ICANN policy development processes are currently being formulated by the Cross Community Working Group on Human Rights. Complementing this, ICANN is also undertaking an internal HRIA of the organization’s operations. It is important to remember that the international human rights instruments that are relevant here are those required by the applicable law.</p>
<p>Apart from its legal responsibility to uphold the HR laws of an area, the framework is worded negatively in that it says ICANN should in general avoid violating human rights. It is also said that they should take into account HR when making policies but these fall short from saying that HR considerations should be given prominent weightage and since there are many core values, at any point one of the others can be used to sidestep human rights. One core value in particular says that ICANN should duly consider the public policy advice of governments and other authorities when arriving at a decision. Thus, if governments want to promote a decision to further national interests at the expense of citizen’s human rights then that would be very much possible within this FOI.</p>
<p><b>3. </b><b><span>JURISDICTION</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>A highly contentious issue in WS2 was that of Jurisdiction, and the recommendations formed to tackle it were quite disappointing. Despite initial discussion by the group on ICANN’s location, they did not address the elephant in the room in their report. Even after the transition, ICANN’s new by-laws state that it is subject to California Law since it was incorporated there. This is partly the fault of the first Workstream because when enumerating the issues for WS2 with respect to jurisdiction, they left it ambiguous by stating: :</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>“At this point in the CCWG Accountability’s work, the main issues that need within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN ́s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, <b><span>but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated.”</span></b></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jurisdiction can often play a significant role in the laws that ICANN will have to abide by in terms of financial reporting, consumer protection, competition and labour laws, legal challenges to ICANN’s actions and finally, in resolving contractual disputes. In its present state, the operations of ICANN could, if such a situation arises, see interference from US authorities by way of legislature, tribunals, enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has, in the past, discussed the concept of “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann">jurisdictional resilience”</a>, which calls for:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li>Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated.</li>
<li>Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions</li>
<li>Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proposing to change ICANN’s seat of headquarters or at the very least, suggest ways for ICANN to gain partial immunity for its policy development processes under the US law would have gone a long way in making ICANN truly a global body. It would have also ensured that as an organization, ICANN would have been equally accountable to all its stakeholders as opposed to now, where by virtue of its incorporation, it has higher legal and possible political, obligations to the United States. This was (initially?) expressed by Brazil who dissented from the majority conclusions of the sub-group and drafted their own minority report, which was supported by countries like Russia. They were unhappy that all countries are still not at an equal footing in the participation of management of Internet resources, which goes against the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder system approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendations:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recommendations passed were in two categories:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">OFAC is an office of the US Treasury administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on the American foreign policy and national security objectives. It is pertinent because, for ICANN to enter into a Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) with an applicant from a sanctioned country, it will need an OFAC license. What happens right now is that ICANN is under no obligation to request for this license and in either case, OFAC can refuse to provide it. The sub group recommended that the terms of the RAA be modified so that ICANN is required to apply for and put their best efforts in securing the license if the applicant is qualified to be a registrar and not individually subject to sanctions. While the licensing process is underway they should also be helpful and transparent, and maintain on-going communication with the applicant. The same recommendation was made for applicants to the new gTLD program, from sanctioned countries. Other general licenses are needed from OFAC for certain ICANN transactions and hence it was proposed that ICANN pursue the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Choice of law and Choice of Venue Provisions in ICANN Agreements</p>
<p>In ICANN’S Registry Agreements (RA) and Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) the absence of a choice of law provision means that the governing law of these contracts is undetermined until later decided by a judge or arbitrator or an agreement between the parties. It was collectively seen that increased freedom of choice for the parties in the agreement could help in customizing the agreements and make it easier for registries and such to contractually engage with ICANN. Out of various options, the group decided that a Menu approach would be best whereby a host of options(decided by ICANN) can be provided and the party in case choose the most appropriate from them such as the jurisdiction of their incorporation.In RAs, the choice of venue was pre determined as Los Angeles, California but the group recommended that instead of imposing this choice on the party it would be better to offer a list of possible venues for arbitration. The registry can then choose amongst these options when entering into the contract. There were other issues discussed which did not reach fruition due to lack of unanimity such as discussions on immunity of ICANN from US jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>4. </b><b><span>OFFICE OF THE OMBUDS</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Subsequent to the external evaluation of the ICANN Office of the Ombuds (IOO), there were a couple of recommendations to strengthen the office. They were divided into procedural aspects that the office should carry out to improve their complaint mechanism such as differentiating between categories of complaints and explaining how each type would be handled with. The issues that would not invoke actions from the IOO should also be established clearly and if and where these could be transferred to any other channel. The response from all the relevant parties of ICANN to a formal request or report from the IOO should take place within 90 days, and 120 at the maximum if an explanation for the same can be provided. An internal timeline will be defined by the office for handling of complaints and document a report on these every quarter or annually. A recommendation for the IOO to be formally trained in mediation and have such experience within its ranks was further given. Reiterating the importance of diversity, even this sub group emphasized on the IOO bearing a diverse group in terms of gender and other parameters. This ensures that a complainant has a choice in who to approach in the office making them more comfortable. To enhance the independence of the Ombuds, their employment contract should have a 5 year fixed term which only allows for one extension of maximum 3 years. An Ombuds Advisory Panel is to be constituted by ICANN comprising five members to act as advisers, supporters and counsel for the IOO with at least 2 members having Ombudsman experience and the remaining possessing extensive ICANN experience. They would be responsible for selecting the new Ombuds and conducting the IOO’s evaluation every 5 years amongst others. Lastly, the IOO should proactively document their work by publishing reports on activity, collecting and publicizing statistics, user satisfaction information a well any improvements to the process.</p>
<p>These proposals still do not address the opacity of how the Office of the Ombuds resolve these cases since it does not call for; a) a compilation of all the cases that have been decided by the office in the history of the organization b) the details of the parties that are involved if the parties have allowed that to be revealed and if not at the very least, the non sensitive data such as their nationality and stakeholder affiliation and c) a description of the proceedings of the case and who won in each of them. When CIS <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1">asked</a> for the above in 2015, the information was denied on ground of confidentiality. Yet, it is vital to know these details since the Ombuds hear complaints against the Board, Staff and other constituent bodies and by not reporting on this, ICANN is rendering the process much less accountable and transparent. This conflict resolution process and its efficacy is even more essential in a multi-stakeholder environment so as to give parties the faith to engage in the process, knowing that the redressal mechanisms are strong. It is also problematic that sexual harassments complaints are dealt by the Ombuds and that ICANN does not have a specific Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee. The committee should be neutral and approachable and while it is useful for the Office of the Ombuds to be trained in sexual harassment cases, it is by no means a comprehensive and ideal approach to deal with complaints of this nature. Despite ICANN facing a sexual harassment claim i<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-sexual-harrasment-at-icann55">n 2016</a>, the recommendations do not specifically address the approach the Ombuds should take in tackling sexual harassment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>5. </b><b><span>SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION/ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub group presented the outcomes under the main heads of Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Outreach and Updates to policies and procedures. They suggested these as good practices that can be followed by the organizations and did not recommend that implementation of the same be required. The accountability aspect had suggestions of better documentation of procedures and decision-making. Proposals of listing members of such organizations publicly, making their meetings open to public observation including minutes and transcripts along with disclosing their correspondence with ICANN were aimed at making these entities more transparent. In the same vein, rules of membership and eligibility criteria, the process of application and a process of appeal should be well defined. Newsletters should be published by the SO/AC to help non-members understand the benefit and the process of becoming a member. Policies were asked to be reviewed at regular intervals and these internal reviews should not extend beyond a year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>6. </b><b><span>STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Improving the ICANN staff’s Accountability was the job of a different group who assessed it at the service delivery, departmental or organizational level not at an individual or personnel level. They did this by analysing the roles and responsibilities of the Board, staff and community members and the nexus between them. Their observations culminated in the understanding that ICANN needs to take steps such as make visible their performance management system and process, their vision for the departmental goals and how they tie in to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. They note that several new mechanisms have already been established yet have not been used enough to ascertain their efficacy and thus, propose a regular information acquisition mechanism. Most importantly, they have asked ICANN to standardize and publish guidelines for suitable timeframes for acknowledging and responding to requests from the community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>7. </b><b><span>ICANN TRANSPARENCY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last group of the WS2 was one specifically looking at the transparency of the organization.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>a. <span>The Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently the DIDP process only applies to ICANN’s “operational activities”, it was recommended to delete this caveat to cover a wider breadth of the organization’s activities. As CIS has experienced, request for information is often met with an answer that such information is not documented and to remedy the same, a documentation policy was proposed where if significant elements of a decision making process are taking place orally then the participants will be required to document the substance of the conversation. Many a times DIDP requests are refused because one aspect of the information sought is subject to confidentiality. hus one of the changes is to introduce a severability clause so that in such cases, information can still be disclosed with the sensitive aspect redacted or severed. In scenarios of redaction, the rationale should be provided citing one of the given DIDP exceptions along with the process for appeal. ICANN’s contracts should be under the purview of the DIDP except when subject to a non-disclosure agreement and further, the burden is on the other party to convince ICANN that it has a legitimate commercial reason for requested the NDA. No longer would any information pertaining to the security and stability of the Internet be outside the ambit of the DIDP but only if it is harmful to the security and stability. Finally, ICANN should review the DIDP every five years to see how it can be improved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>b. <span>Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with the Government</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a prominent step towards being more transparent with their expenditure and lobbying, the group recommended that ICANN begins disclosing publicly on at least an annual basis, sums of $20,000 per year devoted to “political activities” both in the US and abroad. All expenditures should be done on an itemized basis by ICANN for both outside contractors and internal personnel along with the identities of the persons engaging in such activities and the type of engagement used for such activities amongst others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>cc. <span>Transparency of Board Deliberations</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>The bylaws were recommended to be revised so that material may be removed from the minutes of the Board if subject to a DIDP exception. The exception for deliberative processes should not apply to any factual information, technical report or reports on the performance or effectiveness of a particular body or strategy. When any information is removed from the minutes of the Board meeting, they should be disclosed after a particular period of time as and when the window of harm has passed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>d. <span>ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistle-blower Protection)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To begin with, ICANN was recommended to devise a way such that when anyone searches their website for the term “whistle-blower”, it should redirect to their Hotline policy since people are unlikely to be aware that in ICANN parlance it is referred to as the Hotline policy. Instead of only “serious crimes” that are currently reported, all issues and concerns that violate local laws should be. Complaints should not be classified as ‘urgent’ and ‘non-urgent’ but all reports should be a priority and receive a formal acknowledgment within 48 hours at the maximum. ICANN should make it clear that any retaliation against the reporter will be taken and investigated as seriously as the original alleged wrongdoing. Employees should be provided with data about the use of the Hotline, including the types of incidents reported. Few member of this group came out with a Minority Statement expressing their disapproval with one particular aspect of the recommendations that they felt was not developed enough, the one pertaining to ICANN’s attorney-client privilege. The recommendation did not delve into specifics but merely stated that ICANN should expand transparency in their legal processes including clarifying how attorney-client privilege is invoked. The dissidents thought ICANN should go farther and enumerate principles where the privilege would be waived in the interests of transparency and account for voluntary disclosure as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The transparency recommendations did not focus on the financial reporting aspects of ICANN which <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-icann-financials-from-2012-2016">we have found ambiguities</a> with before. Some examples are; the Registries and Registrars are the main sources of revenue though there is ambiguity as to the classifications provided by ICANN such as the difference between RYG and RYN. The mode of contribution of sponsors isn’t clear either so we do not know if this was done through travel, money, media partnerships etc. Several entities have been listed from different places in different years, sometimes depending on the role they have played such as whether they are a sponsor or registry. Moreover, the Regional Internet Registries are clubbed under one heading and as a consequence it is not possible to determine individual RIR contribution like how much did APNIC pay for the Asia and Pacific region. Thus, there is a lot more scope for ICANN to be transparent which goes beyond the proposals in the report.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is worth noting that whereas the mandate of the WS1 included the implementation of the recommendations, this is not the case for WS2 and thus, by creating a report itself the mission of the group is concluded. This difference can be attributed to the fact that during the first WS, there was a need to see it through since the IANA transition would not happen otherwise. The change in circumstances and the corresponding lack of urgency render the process less powerful, the second time round. The final recommendations are now being discussed in the relevant charting organizations within ICANN such as the Government Advisory Council (GAC) and subsequent to their approval,, it will be sent to the Board who will decide to adopt them or not. If adopted, ICANN and its sub organizations will have to see how they can implement these recommendations. The co-chairs of the group will be the point of reference for the chartering organizations and an implementation oversight team has been formed, consisting of the Rapporteurs of the sub teams and the co-chairs. A Feasibility Assessment Report will be made public in due time which will describe the resources that would take to implement the recommendations. Since it would be a huge undertaking for ICANN to implement the above, the compliance process is expected to take a few years. .</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>The link to report can be found<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home?preview=/59640761/88575033/FULL%20WS2%20REPORT%20WITH%20ANNEXES.pdf"> here.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNInternet GovernanceAccountability2018-11-23T14:56:20ZBlog EntryICANN takes one step forward in its human rights and accountability commitments
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
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The article was first<a class="external-link" href="https://www.article19.org/resources/blog-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments/"> published on Article 19</a> on December 16, 2019</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Diversity</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Good faith Guidelines</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Transparency</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The recommendations focus on the following four key areas as listed below:<br />1. Improving ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP).<br />2. Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with Governments.<br />3. Improving Transparency of Board Deliberations.<br />4. Improving ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistleblower Protection).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>How the ICANN community can contribute to this work</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>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;</li>
<li>conducting diversity assessments to inform objectives and strategies for diversity criteria;</li>
<li>supporting contracted parties through legal advice for change in their agreements when it comes to choice of law and venue recommendations;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">contributing to conversations where the Ombudsman can expand his/her involvement that go beyond current jurisdiction and authority</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='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'>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</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy KenyanitoFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNIANAInternet Governance2019-12-19T11:35:16ZBlog EntryICANN Sexual Harassment Case Highlights Lack of Procedure at Global Internet Body
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-march-24-2016-icann-sexual-harassment-case-highlights-lack-of-procedure-at-global-internet-body
<b>Alleged perpetrator files counter-complaint with ombudsman’s office after being publicly identified.</b>
<p>The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://thewire.in/2016/03/24/icann-sexual-harassment-case-highlights-lack-of-procedure-at-global-internet-body-25728/">published in the Wire</a> on March 24, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A female researcher associated with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society has alleged that she was sexually harassed at an ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) public meeting held in Morocco earlier this month, in an incident that highlights a lack of established procedure at the global body responsible for maintaining the technical backbone of the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the woman, who is currently a law student but was representing CIS at the meeting, she was sexually harassed by a participant from the private sector constituency on March 6th at a working session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I felt like my space and safety as a young woman in the ICANN community was at stake,” she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN-organised events currently do not have a formal redressal system for these type of complaints nor does it have a specific anti-sexual harassment committee to which community members can file an official complaint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The CIS representative, therefore, has taken up her case with ICANN’s ombudsman office, an office that does not have an explicit mandate to deal with incidents of sexual harassment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I currently am unclear as to the exact status of my complaint. The ombudsman office does not have a clear sexual harassment procedure, it has only a standards of behaviour. When I first went to them, they told me nobody has officially complained of sexual harassment since 1998,” she told <i>The Wire</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I understand the evidential burden that needs to be fulfilled for this [allegation] to be proven. I know it’s difficult to prove this. I just want an enquiry conducted properly and impartially.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society released a sharp statement on Monday, pointing out that since the woman was “given no immediate remedy or formal recourse”, she had no choice but to make “the incident publicly known in the interim.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham pointed out that while the ombudsman office has been in touch with the organisation’s representative, “this administrative process is simply inadequate for rights-violation”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To that end, CIS has called upon ICANN to “institute a formal redressal system with regard to sexual harassment and institute an anti-sexual harassment committee that is neutral and approachable”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Merely having an ombudsman who is a white male, however well intentioned, is inadequate and completely unhelpful to the complainant. The present situation is one where the ombudsman has no effective power and only advises the board ,” the CIS’s statement reads.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>ICANN perspective</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When asked for a comment, ICANN media representatives pointed <em>The Wire</em> to the written transcript of a public session in which this particular issue of sexual harassment was raised. In that meeting, ICANN board member Markus Kummer specifically condemns “improper conduct of any kind such as harassment” while calling for zero tolerance on such issues within the larger ICANN community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the issue of whether ICANN could adopt a broader policy on sexual harassment, Kummer acknowledges that while the organisation’s expected standards of behaviour “could be a bit more specific as regards harassment”, the standards are applicable to “staff and board members and we have to undergo training”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Now, we could also make this also available to the community but the board thought it might not be the appropriate way to go about and impose something on the community. It might be more appropriate for the community to come up with these standards…Let me once again assure the community that the board is fully cognizant of the importance of this issue and supports the community in developing standards that may be more explicit in regard of these issues,” Kummer is quoted as saying in the transcript.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Complaint, Counter-Complaint</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The incident, however, took a different turn on Tuesday after the ICANN ombudsman wrote to the CIS representative informing her that the investigation had become “very difficult” because she had identified and named the alleged perpetrator in a public social media posting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“By naming [the alleged perpetrator] before the process was completed, this has meant that the confidentiality of my office has been compromised and his privacy has been compromised. Leaving aside the issue of whether he actually made the comments and behaved as you describe [sic], he is entitled to a fair and impartial investigation,” the ombudsman office’s letter says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The alleged perpetrator now, according to the letter, has filed a counter-complaint with the ombudsman and has asked the office to undertake an investigation into the female student’s actions in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I remind you that his [the perpetrator] initial response on the initial discussion was that he could not recall making the remark. So I sought your comments. I would have liked to take your comments back to him and had some form of conversation. This may still be possible but the force of your complaint is diluted by the problem of procedural fairness by the premature publication of his name,” the letter adds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Cleaning up</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the CIS representative’s complaint may be the first officially recorded incident at an ICANN meeting, sexual harassment and inappropriate gender bias at numerous technical conferences across the world (ICANN or not) has been a <a href="http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents" target="_blank"><span>well-documented phenomenon</span></a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, ICANN ombudsman Chris LaHette was forced to step in after a complaint was lodged regarding the <a href="http://domainincite.com/8146-hot-girls-land-cz-nic-in-hot-water" target="_blank"><span>insensitive advertising and promotion </span></a>surrounding the ICANN 44 meeting in Prague.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While ICANN’s “expected standards of behaviour” – basically a code of conduct – explicitly states that all “members of the ICANN community be treated equally irrespective of nationality or gender..”, there is no official policy that states what aggrieved parties should do after an incident occurs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Such a policy must be created, CIS points out, and must be “displayed on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings, and made available in delegate kits”.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-march-24-2016-icann-sexual-harassment-case-highlights-lack-of-procedure-at-global-internet-body'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-march-24-2016-icann-sexual-harassment-case-highlights-lack-of-procedure-at-global-internet-body</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaICANNInternet GovernanceSexual Harassment2016-04-01T15:42:49ZNews ItemICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014
<b>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. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Five days ago, CIS received a <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-final-version/at_download/file">detailed list of ICANN’s revenues</a> 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 <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-summary/at_download/file">summary</a> has also been provided by ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This revenue disclosure from ICANN comes on the heels of public and email correspondence between CIS and ICANN staff. At the <a href="http://2014.rigf.asia/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/0805APRIGF-Plenary.doc">Asia Pacific Regional IGF</a> (August 3-6, 2014), CIS’ Sunil Abraham sought granular data – both current and historical – on ICANN’s revenues from the domain name industry.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Again, <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/174-igf-2014/transcripts/1986-2014-09-04-open-forum-icann-room-4">at the ICANN Open Forum at IGF</a> (4 September 2014), Sunil sought “<i>details of a list of legal entities that give money to ICANN and how much money they give to ICANN every year</i>”. In emails to Kuek Yu-Chuang (ICANN’s Asia Pacific head) and Xavier Calvez (ICANN CFO), CIS had asked for historical data as well.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The global domain name industry is a <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_industry_4_billion_2010/">multi-billion dollar industry</a>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Given the impending IANA transition and accountability debates at ICANN, and the </span><a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/1162596.htm">rapid growth</a><span> 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), </span><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/174-igf-2014/transcripts/1986-2014-09-04-open-forum-icann-room-4">Sunil raised</a><span> 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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <i>only</i> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">**</p>
<p><span>The documents:</span></p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-final-version/at_download/file">ICANN’s domain name revenues in FY14</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fy14-customer-payments-summary/at_download/file">Summary of revenue information</a>. </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNTransparencyAccountability2014-12-12T05:08:02ZBlog EntryICANN response to DIDP #31 on diversity
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity
<b>This post summarizes the response of ICANN to our inquiry on the diversity of their employees.</b>
<p>The file can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-response">found here </a></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">In our <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann">31st DIDP request</a>, we had asked ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship. ICANN states that they are an equal opportunities employer and to ascertain the extent of people from different backgrounds in their ranks, we were hoping to be given the information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However the response provided to us did not shed any light on this because of two reasons; firstly, ICANN has this information solely for two countries namely USA and Singapore as legislation in these countries compels employers to record this information. In the US, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that any organization with 100 or more employees have to file an Employer Information Report wherein the employment data is categorized by race/ethnicity/, gender and job category. Whereas in Singapore, information on race is gathered from the employee to assess which Self-Help group fund an employee should contribute to under Singaporean law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, for the two countries, they refused to divulge information on the basis of their conditions of nondisclosure. The conditions pertinent here were:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Information provided by or to a government or international organization, or any form of recitation of such information, in the expectation that the information will be kept confidential and/or would or likely would materially prejudice ICANN's relationship with that party.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Personnel, medical, contractual, remuneration, and similar records relating to an individual's personal information, when the disclosure of such information would or likely would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, as well as proceedings of internal appeal mechanisms and investigations. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Drafts of all correspondence, reports, documents, agreements, contracts, emails, or any other forms of communication </li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><br />We had only enquired about the percentage of representation of employees at each level by their race or citizenship but this was deemed dangerous to disclose by ICANN. They did not volunteer anymore information such as an anonymized data set and hence we will now file a DIDP to ask them for the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Given the global and multi-stakeholder nature of the processes at ICANN, it is also of importance that their workforce represents true diversity as well. Their bylaws mandate diversity amongst its Board of Directors and some of its constituent bodies but there is no concrete proof of this being imbibed within their recruitment ICANN also did not think it was necessary to disclose our requested information in the benefit of public interest because it does not outweigh the harm that could be caused by the requested disclosure.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti Bopanna and Akash SriramICANNInternet Governance2018-08-21T17:35:06ZBlog EntryICANN Masterclass
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass
<b>ICANN organized a masterclass in Bangalore on June 19, 2019.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda</h3>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<ul>
<li>10.00 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.: Introduction to ICANN and the role of ICANN Org to facilitate the community’s work </li>
<li>10.45 a.m. - 12.00: Tea break</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">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). </li>
<li>1.30 p.m - 2.30 p.m.: Lunch</li>
<li>2.30 p.m - 3.30 p.m.: The role of Governmental Advisory Committee (India’s GAC-related engagement in specific terms). </li>
<li>3.30 p.m. - 3.45 p.m.: Tea break</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">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). </li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminICANNInternet Governance2019-06-22T03:57:07ZNews ItemICANN Diversity Analysis
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis
<b>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.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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”.<a href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a>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.<a href="#_ftn2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<p>CIS analysed the five most active mailing lists amongst the working group mailing lists from January 2016 to May 2018, namely:</p>
<ol><li>Outreach & Engagement,</li>
<li>Technology,</li>
<li>At-Large Review 2015 - 2019,</li>
<li>IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability, and</li>
<li>Finance & Budget mailing lists.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<h4>The following findings were observed:</h4>
<ul>
<li>A total of 218 participants were present on the 5 mailing lists that were looked at.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">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. </li></ul>
<h4>Among the active non-staff participants:</h4>
<ul>
<li>Out of the 75 participants, <strong>56</strong> (<strong>74.7%</strong>) were male and <strong>19</strong> (<strong>25.3%</strong>) were female.<br /><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Gender.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Gender" /><br /><br /><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/StakeholderGroup.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Stakeholder Group" /></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><strong>57.3%</strong> 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.<br /><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Region.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Region" /></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">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</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Within Asia, we identified only one active participant from China.</li></ul>
<h3>Concerns</h3>
<ul>
<li>The vast number of the people participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male constituting three fourth of the participants.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">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.</li>
<li>Only 14.7% of the participants were from Asia, which is concerning since 48.7% of internet users worldwide belong to Asia.<a href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a></li>
<li>China which has the world’s largest population of internet users (700 million people)<a href="#_ftn2"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> had only one active participant on these mailing lists.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
<p><a href="#_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/icann</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNFeaturedHomepageInternet Governance2018-08-29T11:19:46ZBlog EntryICANN Begins its Sojourn into Open Data
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data
<b>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced that it will now set up a pilot project in order to introduce an Open Data initiative for all data that it generates. We would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document to be prepared before ICANN 58.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To quote the ICANN blog directly, the aim of this project is to “<em>bring selected data sets into the open, available through web pages and programming APIs, for the purposes of external party review and analysis</em>” <a href="#ftn1">[1]</a>. This will play out through the setting up of three components:</p>
<ol><li>Development of a catalogue of existing data sets which will be appropriate for publication</li>
<li>Selection of the technology necessary for managing the publication of these data sets.</li>
<li>Creation of a process to prioritise the order in which the data sets are made available <a href="#ftn2">[2]</a>.</li></ol>
<h3><strong>Principles in Question</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Centre for Internet and Society firmly believes in the value of accessible, inclusive open data standards as a tool for enhancing transparency in any system. Greater transparency goes a long way towards bringing a regulatory authority closer to those who are governed under it – be it a state or a body such as ICANN. It is, in fact, an indispensable component of a multistakeholder model of governance to facilitate informed participation by all parties concerned in the decision making process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The right to information that a regulatory authority owes those it regulates has two kinds of components. The first may be described as reactive disclosure – “<em>when individual members of the public file requests for and receive information</em>” <a href="#ftn#3">[3]</a>. The second is disclosure that is more proactive in nature – “<em>when information is made public at the initiative of the public body, without a request being filed</em>” <a href="#ftn4">[4]</a>. The former is epitomized by initiatives such as the Freedom of
Information Act <a href="#ftn5">[5]</a> in the United States, the Right to Information Act in India <a href="#ftn6">[6]</a>, or ICANN’s very own Documentary Information Disclosure Policy <a href="#ftn7">[7]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Proactive disclosure policies, on the other hand, operate out of the principle that the provision of information by those in positions of regulatory authority will ensure free and timely flow of information to the public, and the information so provided will be equally accessible to everyone, without the need for individual requests being filed <a href="#ftn8">[8]</a>. Proactive disclosure also goes a long way towards preventing officials from denying or manipulating information subsequent to publication <a href="#ftn9">[9]</a>. Scholars have touted proactive disclosure as the “<em>future of the right to know</em>” <a href="#ftn10">[10]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At the Centre for Internet and Society, much of our research has pointed towards the direction of creating better open data standards for governments (Please see “<a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-government-data-study">Open Data Government Study: India</a>”). We are one of the Lead Stewards of the International Open Data Charter <a href="#ftn11">[11]</a> and have maintained that it is crucial for governments to maintain open data standards in the interest of transparency and accountability. We firmly believe that the same principles extend also to ICANN – a body which, as per its own by-laws commits towards operating “…<em>to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</em>”<a href="#ftn12">[12]</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Suggestions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While this policy is in its nascent stage, we would like to put forward certain principles which we believe ought to be kept in mind before it gets chalked out, in the best interest of the ICANN community:</p>
<ol><li>To determine what data sets should be made publicly accessible, it would be useful to carry out an analysis of existing DIDP requests to understand trends in the kind of information that the ICANN community is interested in accessing, which can then be proactively disclosed. It would be redundant on ICANN’s part to disclose, under this Open Data Policy, data which is already publicly available.</li>
<li>ICANN should first develop a catalog of all existing data sets with ICANN, apply the principles for deciding appropriateness for publication, then make publicly available both the full catalog, and the actual data sets identified for publication. ICANN should make clear the kind of information it is not going to make accessible
under this open data standards, and justify the principles on the basis of which it is choosing to do so (analogous to the exceptions clauses under the DIDP).</li>
<li>With respect to technology to be selected for managing the publication of data sets, free and open source software (such as CKAN) ought to be used, and open standards should be adopted for the use and licensing of such data.</li>
<li>Such data ought to be downloadable in bulk in CSV/JSON/XML formats.</li>
<li>DIDP responses and the open data work flows ought to be integrated so that all the responses to DIDP requests are automatically published in a machine-readable format as open data.</li>
<li>Qualitative (text of speeches, slides from presentations, recordings of sessions, etc.) and quantitative data should both be included under this new policy.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In conclusion, we would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document before ICANN 58.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<div id="ftn1">
<p>[1] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, <em>ICANN Kicks off Open Data Initiative Pilot</em>, (November 6, 2016), available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p>[2] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p>[3] Naniette Coleman, <em>Proactive vs. Reactive Transparency</em>, (February 8, 2010), available at: <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency">http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p>[4] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p>[5] Freedom of Information Act, 1966, 5 U.S.C. § 552.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p>[6] Right to Information Act, 2005 <em>available at</em> http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti-act.pdf</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p>[7] ICANN, <em>Documentary Information Disclosure Policy</em>, available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p>[8] Helen Darbishire, <em>Proactive Transparency: The future of the right to information?</em> Working paper. N.p.: World Bank, (2009).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p>[9] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p>[10] Darbishire, <em>supra</em> note 8.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p>[11] Open Data Charter, <em>Who We Are</em>, available at <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/">http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/</a> (Last visited on November 10, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p>[12] Article III(1), Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data</a>
</p>
No publisherPadmini Baruah and Sumandro ChattapadhyayOpen DataICANNinternet governance2016-11-12T01:17:24ZBlog EntryICANN accountability, IANA transition and open questions
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-accountability-iana-transition-and-open-questions
<b>On February 3, 2015, the Centre for Communication Governance (NLU, Delhi) hosted a pre-event briefing in light of ICANN52 (Singapore, February 7-12, 2015). Geetha Hariharan attended the event.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At a briefing on ICANN52 organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (NLU, Delhi) on 3 February, 2015 (‘CCG Briefing Event’), consensus was seen on two broad things: ICANN’s processes on IANA transition and accountability are crucial for Internet governance this year, and India’s participation (both municipal and international) is wanting. The meeting, which saw discussion following the Chatham House rules, was attended by members from industry associations, government and civil society. A light parsing of the current proposals from the CWG-Names and CRISP (the names and numbers communities) for IANA transition brought the composition of the transition proposals under scrutiny.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">CRISP and the proposed Service Level Agreements:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal-1_IO20150119.txt">proposal from the numbers community</a>, the CRISP, suggests that ICANN and the five RIRs enter into Service Level Agreements. Under the proposal, existing accountability, oversight and policy development mechanisms remain unchanged, with ICANN agreeing to perform IANA functions to meet requisite service levels. If it fails to meet such standards, the RIRs may terminate the contract or refuse to renew it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The CRISP proposal does not look beyond ICANN for an IANA functions operator, and places its faith entirely in ICANN’s past performance of numbering IANA functions. As so many have said before, the CRISP proposal is blithe in its lack of review mechanism or safeguards, having even fewer safeguards than the CWG-Names proposal. Doubtless, a cause for concern.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">CWG-Names and the Four New Entities:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en.pdf">CWG-Names proposal</a> suggests that four new entities be created to replace the NTIA’s role under the IANA Functions Contract. Under the proposal, ICANN will continue to be the IANA Functions Operator for the present. It will enter into an IANA Functions Contract with <strong>“Contract Co.”</strong>, a new shell entity which will replace NTIA as the contracting party. Contract Co. is to be a lightweight entity, with few staff or administrative capabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At present, the NTIA performs what it considers a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/16/this_is_how_the_us_government_runs_the_internet/">“clerical role”</a> in its oversight of the DNS. However, the IANA Functions Contract also includes review functions, such as the rebidding and renewal process to determine whether ICANN (or some other entity) ought to continue as the IANA functions operator. Under the CWG-Names proposal, these review functions, which also include budget reviews, reporting, etc. are to be carried out by a <strong>“Multi-stakeholder Review Team (MRT)”</strong>, the terms of whose composition are as yet undecided.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The composition of the MRT is crucial to an independent and representative oversight of IANA. At the CCG Briefing Event, concerns were raised as to the representation of ccTLDs on the MRT. Not all ccTLDs are represented in the ICANN ecosystem, in the ccNSO; 152 ccTLDs are <a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm">members</a> of the ccNSO. Of course, one may argue that this concern exists under the present IANA functions contract as well. But the devil is in the details, or lack thereof. We don’t know, for instance, who will populate the MRT, whether they will enjoy immunities normally reserved for diplomatic or consular agents, or most importantly, what relationship the MRT will enjoy with ICANN. Will there be a contract with ICANN, or a memorandum of understanding that sets out ICANN’s responsibilities, failing which the IANA contract may be terminated?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The third new creation of the CWG-Names proposal is the <strong>“Customer Standing Committee (CSC)”</strong>. While the CSC’s composition is also nebulous, its functions are to work with the MRT to establish Service Levels and Performance Indicators for the naming functions, and to receive performance reports from the IANA operator (ICANN). Clause C.2.8 of the present IANA functions contract requires that the IANA operator (ICANN) develop performance standards for all enumerated IANA functions (see Clause C.2.9.1 to C.2.9.4), and also to report on them (Clause C.4). Presumably, the CSC will fill the role of the NTIA’s Contracting Officer’s Representative in receiving these performance reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The fourth and final new entity is the <strong>“Independent Appeals Panel (IAP)”</strong>, the composition of which is also undecided. The IAP is intended to hear and adjudicate all actions related to the root zone or root zone WHOIS, and under the present proposal, the CWG-Names suggests it should be constituted from time to time in the manner of a binding arbitration process. However, it should be noted that the CWG-Names proposal is unclear whether the IAP decisions are binding on or advisory to the ICANN Board. Concerns of the IAP’s composition aside, dangers of making its decisions only advisory to the ICANN Board loom large and real, and the CCG Briefing Event reflected this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Already, the ICANN Board wields extensive power with regard to policy decisions. For instance, policies developed under the global policy development process by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/review-procedures-2012-02-25-en">may be rejected</a> by the ICANN Board by a 2/3rds majority vote. Such a rejection may result in a mediation process according to agreed procedure. Another instance is the change in the ICANN Board’s treatment of GAC advice. Prior to the amendment to ICANN’s Bye-laws, the Board was not required to provide reasons for its rejection of GAC advice. In its present form, Article XI, Section 2(1) of ICANN’s Bye-laws make such reasons mandatory. How ought IAP decisions be treated, as binding or advisory? If they are to be binding, ICANN or any other IANA functions operator will have to enter into a legal arrangement (by contract or MoU, or in the best case, an amendment to ICANN Bye-laws).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Dodging the real issues: ICANN incumbency, IANA separation and where will all the money come from?</h3>
<p><span style="text-align: justify; ">Both the CWG-Names and CRISP proposals skim past certain issues relating to ICANN’s incumbency in the IANA role. The </span><strong>first concern</strong><span style="text-align: justify; ">, of course, is whether ICANN should continue to be the IANA functions operator. Both proposals accept ICANN’s role, suggesting no change. While there are compelling reasons for ICANN’s continued role as IANA functions operator, unquestioning incumbency is equal to lack of accountability. And as neither proposal sets out a review process (the CWG-Names proposal only mentions that the MRT shall have this function), it is a concern.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Perhaps the </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability">CCWG-Accountability</a><span>, convened under the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, is better equipped to provide suggestions. However, the CCWG-Accountability is hard-pressed for time. Its two Workstreams, dealing with IANA transition related accountability mechanisms and ICANN’s internal accountability, are unlikely to see desired progress before the transition deadline of September 2015. For instance, within the CCWG-Accountability, a debate is ongoing as to ICANN’s composition. At the time of its incorporation, a suggestion that ICANN ought to have statutory members was floated, but turned down. The suggestion has </span><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/12/19/icann-accountability-a-coup-or-a-contract/">reared its head again</a><span> in the CCWG-Accountability, to consider checks and balances on the ICANN Board.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>second concern</strong> relates to IANA’s continued existence within ICANN, without separation of policy and implementation. This concern has been clamouring for attention for many months. Milton Mueller, for instance, has recommended <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/">structural separation</a> of IANA and ICANN, as did I and others during the course of the face-to-face meetings of the CWG-Names (I attended remotely).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A structural separation is beneficial for many reasons. It enforces a simple separation of powers. “When”, as Montesquieu stated, “the legislative and the executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may rise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner”. Tyranny is speaking in terms too extreme for ICANN, perhaps, it is undeniable that ICANN has grown larger in scope and size from its original incorporation. It was incorporated, as Professor DeNardis has noted [<i>Protocol Politics</i>, 161], to perform technical coordination of the global DNS and other functions performed originally by Jon Postel as IANA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, in addition to technical coordination and policy-setting for names and numbers (through the gPDP), ICANN is a major player in the Internet governance institutional space; its involvement in and aggressive marketing of the NETmundial Initiative is but an example. For instance, ICANN budgets for less than US $10 million for providing core Internet functions out of a US $160 million strong budget (FY2015). It has budgeted, in comparison, US $13 million for travel and meetings alone (FY2015). Separating IANA from ICANN will, as others have suggested, protect it from political or other influences within ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In any event, once the NTIA terminates the IANA functions contract, IANA is not strictly required to be within the US. At the moment, Clause C.2.1 of the IANA functions contract requires that the IANA functions operator be “a wholly U.S. owned and operated firm or fully accredited United States University or College operating in one of the 50 states of the United States or District of Columbia; b) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) states of the United States or District of Columbia; and c) organized under the laws of a state of the United States or District of Columbia”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Were structural separation to be achieved, IANA could be incorporated in another, neutral jurisdiction. Not only would be assuage optical considerations and ensure separation of powers, but as our experience with filtering on the Internet shows (see, for instance, the Open Net Initiative’s <a href="https://opennet.net/">research</a>), unilateral controls are much harder to enforce when the apparatus is decentralized.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>third concern</strong> raised at the CCG Briefing Event concerned the funding of the new entities proposed by the CWG-Names. Would these entities be self-financing, or perhaps ICANN would support them? While some participants felt ICANN could also provide financial support, this would, in my view, bring ICANN too close to its oversight entities, and increase chances of influence.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-accountability-iana-transition-and-open-questions'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-accountability-iana-transition-and-open-questions</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNIANA Transition2015-02-06T11:39:21ZBlog EntryICANN 65 De-briefing Meeting
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting
<b>The Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) organized an ICANN65 de-briefing meeting on July 16, 2019. Akriti Bopanna remotely presented on the Human Rights related developments that took place at the Marrakech meeting, over the course of the 4 days.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti's updates related to Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability, the Government Advisory Council's options in incorporating HR in their communication to the Board, their interest in our Human Rights Impact Assessment work and having a high interest session on the same at ICANN66. She also spoke about her contributions to the ICANN Board on their Anti-Harassment Policy along with details on the working group established to discussing the policy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-21T15:02:03ZNews ItemICANN 65
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65
<b>Akriti Bopanna attended ICANN 65 in Marrakech, Morocco from 24 - 27 June 2019. </b>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti spoke on ICANN and Human Rights at a session organized by the At-Large and Non-Commercial Users Constituency.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Government Advisory Council discussed how government representatives can get involved in the Human Rights Impact Assessment work which the working party that she co-chairs on Human Rights at ICANN has been conducting. Akriti spoke on the feasibility of organizing a High Interest Session on Human Rights at ICANN66.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti participated in a public meeting of ICANN's Board on their Anti-Harassment Policy and my suggestions/remarks on improving the samte were received well.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-06T01:08:36ZNews ItemICANN 61 Readout
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-61-readout
<b>Akriti Bopanna attended an ICANN61 Readout session on the 19th of April at the International Institute of Information Technology at Electronic City in Bengaluru. </b>
<p>Click to read the agenda <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/icann-61-agenda">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-61-readout'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-61-readout</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminICANNInternet Governance2018-05-05T09:18:03ZNews ItemICANN 57
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-57-hyderabad
<b>ICANN 57 is being hosted by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India from November 3 to 9, 2016 in Hyderabad at Hyderabad International Convention Centre. Vidushi Marda participated in the event as a speaker.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As part of her work for the Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights, Vidushi <a class="external-link" href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meeting+Notes?preview=/53772757/63146891/Presentation%20CCWP%20HR%20ICANN57%20complete%203.pdf">presented her work on the Human Rights Impact of new gTLD Subsequent Procedures</a> in Hyderabad.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Minister of Law & Justice and Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad reiterated India’s commitment to the multistakeholder model during the Opening Ceremony of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN’s) 57th Public Meeting. The meeting, also known as ICANN57, is taking place in Hyderabad, India, from November 3 – 9, 2016 and has convened thousands of the global Internet community members (both on-site and remotely) to discuss and develop policies related to the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). It is hosted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), with support from the Government of Telangana.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN57 is the first post-IANA stewardship transition public meeting and also the first Annual General Meeting under the new Meetings Strategy. ICANN meetings are held three times a year in different regions to enable attendees from around the world to participate in person. These meetings offer a variety of sessions such as workshops, open forums and working meetings on the development and implementation of Internet policies. ICANN meetings offer the best opportunity for face-to-face discussions and exchange of opinions among attendees dedicated to the continued stable and secure operation of the Domain Name System.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info about the event, visit the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2016-11-05-en">ICANN website</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-57-hyderabad'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-57-hyderabad</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNIANAInternet Governance2016-11-08T01:14:37ZNews ItemICANN 55
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-55
<b>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held its 55th meeting in Marrakech, Morocco from March 5 to 10, 2016. Padmini Baruah and Vidushi Marda attended the event organized by Moroccan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Consular and Social Affairs. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet & Society's (CIS) work during this meeting revolved mainly around ICANN's accountability (DIDP and Reconsideration requests), transparency, its commitment to human rights, diversity, and questions surrounding the IANA transition. CIS research was circulated via a submission booklet to different people that we met through the course of the conference. A session-wise account of our work at ICANN55 can be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ICANN55WorkSummary.pdf" class="internal-link">accessed here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-55'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-55</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaICANNInternet Governance2016-03-30T14:41:34ZNews ItemIANA Transition: Suggestions for Process Design
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design
<b>With analysis of community-input and ICANN processes, Smarika Kumar offers concrete suggestions for process design. She urges the Indian government to take a stronger position in matters of IANA transition. </b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Introduction:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On 14 March 2014, the NTIA of the US Government <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced</a> its intention to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. These key internet domain name functions comprise functions executed by Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is currently contracted to ICANN by the US government. The US Government delineated that the IANA transition proposal must have broad community support and should address the following four principles:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<ol>
<li><span>Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;</span></li>
<li><span>Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;</span></li>
<li><span>Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and</span></li>
<li><span>Maintain the openness of the Internet.</span></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, the US Government asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan for IANA. In April 2014, ICANN issued a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf">Scoping Document</a> for this process which outlined the scope of the process, as well as, what ICANN thinks, should <i>not </i>be a part of the process. In the spirit of ensuring broad community consensus, ICANN issued a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">Call for Public Input</a><span> on the Draft Proposal of the Principles, Mechanisms and Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of IANA Functions on 8 April 2014, upon which the Government of India made its <a class="external-link" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140507/8a49e95f/2014-4-16-India-Ministry-ICT.pdf">submission</a>. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN is currently deliberating the process for the development of a proposal for transition of IANA functions from the US Government to the global multistakeholder community, a step which would have implications for internet users all over the world, including India. The outcome of this process will be a proposal for IANA transition. The Scoping Document and process for development of the proposal are extremely limited and exclusionary, hurried, and works in ways which could potentially further ICANN’s own interests instead of global public interests. Accordingly, the Government of India is recommended take a stand on the following key points concerning the suggested process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Submissions by the Government of India thus far, have however, failed to comment on the process being initiated by ICANN to develop a proposal for IANA transition. While the actual outcome of the process in form of a proposal for transition is an important issue for deliberation, we hold that it is of immediate importance that the Government of India, along with all governments of the world, <span>pay particular attention to the way ICANN is conducting the process itself</span> to develop the IANA transition proposal. The scrutiny of this process is of immense significance in order to ensure that democratic and representative principles sought by the GoI in internet governance are being upheld within the process of developing the IANA transition proposal. How the governance of the IANA functions will be structured will be an outcome of this process. Therefore if one expects a democratic, representative and transparent governance of IANA functions as the outcome, it is <span>absolutely essential to ensure that the process itself is democratic, representative and transparent</span>.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Issues and Recommendations:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ensuring adequate representation and democracy of all stakeholders in the process for developing the proposal for IANA transition is essential to ensuring representative and democratic outcomes. Accordingly, one must take note of the following issues and recommendations concerning the process.</p>
<h3><span>Open, inclusive deliberation by global stakeholders must define the Scope of the Process for developing proposal for IANA transition:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The current Scoping Document was issued by ICANN to outline the scope of the process by which the proposal for IANA transition would be deliberated. The Scoping Document was framed unilaterally by ICANN, without involvement of the global stakeholder community, and excluding all governments of the world including USA. Although this concern was voiced by a number of submissions to the Public Call by ICANN on the Draft Proposal, such concern was not reflected in ICANN’s <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">Revised Proposal</a> of 6 June 2014. It merely states that the Scoping Document outlines the “<i>focus of this process</i>.” Such a statement is not enough because the focus as well as the scope of the process needs to be decided in a democratic, unrepresentative and transparent manner by the global stakeholder community, including all governments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This unilateral approach to outline which aspects of IANA transition should be allowed for discussion, and which aspects should not, itself defeats the multistakeholder principle which ICANN and the US government claim the process is based on. Additionally, global community consensus which the US Govt. hopes for the outcome of such process, cannot be conceivable when the scope of such process is decided in a unilateral and undemocratic manner. Accordingly, the <span>current Scoping Document should be treated only as a draft</span>, and should be made <span>open to public comment and discussion</span> by the global stakeholder community in order that the scope of the process reflects concerns of global stakeholders, and not just of the ICANN or the US Government.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Accountability of ICANN must be linked to IANA Transition within Scope of the Process:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN Accountability must not run merely as a parallel process, since ICANN accountability has direct impact on IANA transition. The current Scoping Document states, “<i>NTIA exercises no operational role in the performance of the IANA functions. Therefore, ICANN’s role as the operator of the IANA functions is not the focus of the transition: it is paramount to maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS, and uninterrupted service to the affected parties</i>.” However this rationale to exclude ICANN’s role as operator of IANA from the scope of the process is not sound because NTIA does choose to appoint ICANN as the operator of IANA functions, thereby playing a vicarious operational role in the performance of IANA functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The explicit exclusion of ICANN’s role as operator of IANA functions from the scope of the process works to serve ICANN’s own interests by preventing discussions on those alternate models where ICANN does not play the operator role. Basically, this presumes that in absence of NTIA stewardship ICANN will control the IANA functions. Such presumption raises disturbing questions regarding ICANN’s accountability as the IANA functions operator. If discussions on ICANN’s role as operator of IANA functions is to be excluded from the process of developing the proposal for IANA transition, it also implies exclusion of discussions regarding ICANN’s accountability as operator of these functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although ICANN announced a process to enhance its accountability on 6 May 2014, this was designed as a separate, parallel process and de-linked from the IANA transition process. As shown, ICANN’s accountability, its role as convenor of IANA transition process, and its role as current and/or potential future operator of IANA functions are intrinsically linked, and must not be discussed in separate, but parallel process. It is recommended that <span>ICANN accountability in the absence of NTIA stewardship, and ICANN’s role as the operator of IANA functions must be included within the Scoping Document</span> as part of the scope of the IANA transition process. This is to ensure that no kind of IANA transition is executed without ensuring ICANN’s accountability as and if as the operator of IANA functions so that democracy and transparency is brought to the governance of IANA functions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Misuse or appearance of misuse of its convenor role by ICANN to influence outcome of the Process must not be allowed:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN has been designated the convenor role by the US Govt. on basis of its unique position as the current IANA functions contractor and the global co-ordinator for the DNS. However it is this unique position itself which creates a potential for abuse of the process by ICANN. As the current contractor of IANA functions, ICANN has an interest in the outcome of the process being conducive to ICANN. In other words, ICANN prima facie is an interested party in the IANA transition process, which may tend to steer the process towards an outcome favourable to itself. ICANN has already been attempting to set the scope of the process to develop the proposal for IANA transition unilaterally, thus abusing its position as convenor. ICANN has also been trying to separate the discussions on IANA transition and its own accountability by running them as parallel processes, as well as attempting to prevent questions on ICANN’s role as operator of IANA functions by excluding it from the Scoping Document. Such instances provide a strong rationale for defining the limitations of the role of ICANN as convenor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although ICANN’s Revised Proposal of 6 June 2014 stating that ICANN will have a neutral role, and the Secretariat will be independent of ICANN staff is welcome, additional safeguards need to be put in place to avoid conflicts of interest or appearance of conflicts of interest. The Revised Proposal itself was unilaterally issued, whereby ICANN incorporated some of the comments made on its Proposed Draft, in the revised Draft, but excluded some others without providing rationale for the same. For instance, comments regarding inclusion of ICANN’s role as the operator of IANA functions within the Scoping Document, were ignored by ICANN in its Revised Proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is accordingly suggested that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ICANN should limit its role to merely facilitating discussions</span> and not extend it to reviewing or commenting on emerging proposals from the process. ICANN should further <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not compile comments on drafts to create a revised draft</span> at any stage of the process. Additionally, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ICANN staff must not be allowed to be a part of any group or committee</span> which facilitates or co-ordinates the discussion regarding IANA transition.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Components of Diversity Principle should be clearly enunciated in the Draft Proposal:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Diversity Principle was included by ICANN in the Revised Proposal of 6 June 2014 subsequent to submissions by various stakeholders who raised concerns regarding developing world participation, representation and lack of multilingualism in the process. This is laudable. However, past experience with ICANN processes has shown that many 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. This often results in undemocratic, unrepresentative and non-transparent decision-making in such processes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In such a scenario, merely mentioning diversity as a principle is not adequate to ensure abundant participation by developing countries and non-ICANN community stakeholders in the process. Concrete mechanisms need to be devised to include <span style="text-decoration: underline;">adequate and fair geographical, gender, multilingual and developing countries’ participation</span> and representation on all levels so that the process is not relegated merely to domination by North American or European entities. Accordingly, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">all the discussions in the process should be translated</span> into multiple native languages of participants <i>in situ</i>, so that everyone participating in the process can understand what is going on. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Adequate time must be given for the discussion issues to be translated and circulated</span> widely amongst all stakeholders of the world, before a decision is taken or a proposal is framed. To concretise its diversity principle, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">ICANN should also set aside funds</span> and develop a programme with community support for capacity building for stakeholders in developing nations to ensure their fruitful involvement in the process.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Co-ordination Group must be made representative of the global multistakeholder community:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 Govt. has announced for the transition; nor in the multistakeholder participation spirit of NETmundial.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is recommended that the Co-ordination Group then must be made democratic and representative to include larger global stakeholder community, including Governments, Civil Society, and Academia, with suitably diverse representation across geography, gender and developing nations. Adequate number of seats on the Committee must be granted to each stakeholder so that they can each co-ordinate discussions within their own communities and ensure wider and more inclusive participation.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Framing of the Proposal must allow adequate time:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All stakeholder communities must be permitted adequate time to discuss and develop consensus. Different stakeholder communities have different processes of engagement within their communities, and may take longer to reach a consensus than others. If democracy and inclusiveness are to be respected, then each stakeholder must be allowed enough time to reach a consensus within its own community, unlike the short time given to comment on the Draft Proposal. The process must not be rushed to benefit a few.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i>Smarika Kumar is a graduate of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and a member of the Alternative Law Forum, a collective of lawyers aiming to <span>integrate alternative lawyering with critical research, alternative dispute resolution, pedagogic interventions and sustained legal interventions in social issues</span>. Her <span>areas of interest include interdisciplinary research on the Internet, issues affecting indigenous peoples, eminent domain, traditional knowledge and pedagogy.</span></i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/iana-transition-suggestions-for-process-design</a>
</p>
No publisherSmarika KumarICANNIANA TransitionInternet GovernanceTransparency and Accountability2014-06-22T09:15:21ZBlog Entry