[governance] TLD decision-making process

[Edward Hasbrouck]

On 16 Aug 2005 at 10:32, "Milton Mueller" <Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf

I think it is instructive, and important, to compare (1) how the 
objections to the .XXX decision have been expressed and acted on by the 
NTIA/DOC and ICANN, with (2) how objections to other gTLD decisions have 
been considered (or not) and acted on (or not) by NTIA/DOC and ICANN.

If the USA government thought that ICANN's decision on .XXX had been 
improperly made, they could have sought reconsideration of that decisoon 
by the ICANN board of directors on the basis of new evidence, or 
independent review of that decision-making process in accordance with 
ICANN's bylaw on independent review, and ICANN's contractual commitment to 
NTIA/DOC, in the MOU, to provide a mechanism for independent review.

But the letter to ICANN from Asst. Sec. Gallagher of NTIA/DOC makes no 
mention of ICANN's reconsideration or independent review provisions.

By comparison, I have made a request *within* the ICANN process for 
independent review of whether the .TRAVEL decision was made with the 
maximum feasible extent of openness and transparency, and "stay" 
(postponement) of implementation of that decision pending independent 
review.  Not only has my request been completely ignored (so far as I can 
tell) by ICANN, but it has been completely ignored by NTIA/DOC.  While my 
request for independent review and stay has been pending, NTIA/DOC ordered 
the addition of .TRAVEL to the root zone file.  I have received no answer 
to my message to Gallagher asking NTIA/DOC to postpone action on .TRAVEL 
until the independent review panel could consider my request.

My e-mail message to Gallagher is at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000586.html

More background is at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/cat_internet_domain_names.html

http;//hasbrouck.org/icann/

I hope that any "resolution" or other expression of opposition to the 
postponement of the .XXX decision will raise *both* questions: Why is the 
USA government seeking action on .XXX outside ICANN's procedural rules, 
rather than availing itself of the reconsideration or independent review 
mechanisms?  And if the USA government is so concerned about proper 
consideration of objections to the new TLG decision-making process, why is 
the USA government failing, on other TLD's, to require ICANN to provide 
the independent review mechanism promised in ICANN's bylaws and the MOU?

I would, of course, welcome anything others can do to get ICANN to act on 
my request for independent review and stay pending independent review, or 
at least to call attention to its ongoing violation of its own bylaws 
(which require that my request be referred to an independent review panel, 
and guarantee the IRP the right to recommend a stay pending independent 
review) and its commitment in the MOU to provide for independent review.


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward at hasbrouck.org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance