ICANN Struggles With Transparency

Stuart Lawley says, "i think we are actually the first entity to actually file an Independent Review Petition. I may be wrong but i think you simply indicated to ICANN that you wanted one and i guess they just pointed you to the ICDR and sat and waited for you to file."

This is not correct. I filed a formal request with ICANN. (ICANN didn't "point me to the ICRD". They ignored me for months, than pronmised to act on my request, then didn't act.) ICANN's Bylaws provide that an IRP request be filed with ICANN. ICANN *claims* to have adopted procedures for IRP requests to be filed directly with ICDR, but (1) ICANN has never actually approved such procedures in accordance with the rules in ICANN's Bylaws for such decisions, and (2) even if they had, they would not comply with the Bylaws, which provide for filing of IDP requests with ICANN.

As a business, Mr. Lawley and ICM Registry are, understandably, more concerned with a favorable decison that would allow their business plans to move forward than with the procedures. They may choose to accept ICANN's (procedurally improper) "decision" to designate ICDR, and may choose to follow procedures (not in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws) for filing directly with ICDR, etc. But their willingness to follow those procedures does not legitimate those procedures, negate the claims of other pending IRP requesters, or require others to follow them rather than insisting that ICANN actually bring itself into compliance with the IRP Bylaw by (1) conducting a proper policy development process to designate an IRP provider and approve IRP procedures, and (2) acting on the outstanding IRP requests.

*Fundamentally* ICM Registry's objection is to the sunstantive outcome of ICANN's decision, not the process. The IRP request relates to the process, but its main goal is to overturn the substantive decision. Ultimately, ICANN would be able to accommodate such an IRP ruling without fundamental or procedural change.

In light of ICM's commercial goals, the cost of an Independent review, even at US$1 million, is small compared to the profits if the IRP rules in ICM registry's favor. So ICM Registry has little reason to object to the establishment of IRP procedures and fees unaffordable to individuals or public interest advocates.

Fundamentally, my objection is to the process, and my goal as a journalist is change in ICANN's process with respect to openness and transparency. This is much ore threatening to ICANN, since a ruling in my favor by an IRP would require major change in how ICANN operates. And I cannot afford, and would not readily "agree" to, expensive procedures. My request is thus much more threatening to ICANN's established secrecy. Perhaps that is why ICANN has been unable to condyuct the kind of discussions with me about my IRP request that it has apperently been willing to have with ICM Registry.

Of course, by *any* interpretation, ICANN has violated its Bylaws by failing to post the ICM registry request, or any of the other IRP requests, on the ICANN Web site.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:Not the first Independent review request by ehasbrouck

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com