One of the most important ways for ICANN to be both transparent and accountable is the public comment period.
ICANN is very unusual as an organisation in that all of its work – even when in draft form – is put out for public review. Unfortunately that review system has been under-used for years. And so we have been trying for several months to make the process simpler, easier and more effective. We produced a set of Consulting Principles to make it clear what the system is, and a single public comment webpage to make it extremely easy to see what was going on at any given time. This has, we are very pleased to note, caused a jump in the quantity and quality of comments.
There are still concerns though. Just last week on this blog, one commenter complained that he didn’t feel there was much point in making a comment, even though we now produce a summary/analysis of comments made to the public comment period and request that the relevant body explicitly discuss that summary when making a decision concerning the subject at issue. The GNSO actually put discussion of the summary/analysis of the new gTLD report on its meeting agenda in September. There was then however some dispute over whether the summary was given the correct attention, which we are reviewing and hope to discuss with the community soon, figuring out the best way forward.
Mailing list provocation
There has also been some responses to a provocative post of mine about why people weren’t replying, in which there was discussion about where ICANN gathers feedback from. As general manager of public participation I am still of the view that ICANN cannot be expected to take any comment made on any one of its mailing lists as a formal response to a particular comment period. The logistics are just impossible. But there is a case to be made for continuing to improve the public comment process with better software, more user-friendly approaches and a greater effort to inform people about comment periods rather than expect people to come to ICANN to find out.
The point of this post however is to highlight the latest summary/analysis for the Draft Management Operating Principles. This summary is, we believe, a very good example of its type. It takes comments not only from the public comment period but also from the public meeting that was held over the principles in San Juan, and it combines them into an easy-to-read summary and analysis that outlines the feedback objectively and with the individuals who provided the feedback credited.
We hope that this is exactly what the community is after. It is alot of work to boil down all this information into an easily readable format and so we would really like to draw your attention to it and ask what people think of it. Does it strike the right note? Is it the right length? Is the approach right do you feel? Say now because this is likely to form the template for future summary/analysis of comment periods.
The next step
And while we are considering how to go forward with public comments, your thoughts on another idea is welcome. We aim to make the summary/analysis as objective as possible because that is the only fair way forward as it treats all equally and equitably and so encourages confidence in the system. However, in the course of going through comments over the past four months, it has become clear that there are occasions in which people simply get their facts wrong, or appear to misunderstand a policy or approach. We want to find a way in which ICANN staff can disagree with a statement, or outline the thinking behind an approach. We don’t think it is appropriate to put that in a summary of comments so we are looking for a different mechanism.
Our current thinking is that a second document be produced by the staff which goes through the summary/analysis from an organisational perspective and then have that document also posted. But we could also have it so that ICANN staff respond to individual comments as and when they crop up (that approach may work better with new interactive forum software we are looking at). It would probably be important that that staff document is itself open to comment so if someone feels that the staff have themselves misunderstood a point, that that dialogue can happen. But then we are also wary of the fact that we don’t want to keep adding endless comment periods to policy processes. Your comments and thoughts welcome.
In the meantime, please do review the summary/analysis for the Draft Management Operating Principles – it is available here and the same thing is attached as a Word document at the bottom.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments }
Styx Allum 10.10.07 at 8:30 pm
How can ICANN expect people to feel that their opinions have any influence at all after ICANN approved price increases that affect virtually the entire Internet community? Actions speak far louder than mere words, and ICANN’s actions indicate clearly that it is not the general populous or their opinions that have any influence. The underlying motive obviously is intended only to increase income for TLD maintainers such as Verisign, and does little (if anything) to benefit those that the price increase directly extorts money from.
I use the term “extort” to describe such an action, as people would have to either pay WHATEVER price is mandated, or allow their domain name(s) to expire. When one is being faced with extortion, it does not instill trust. ICANN approved the extortion, and should therfore not be surprised to learn that people such as myself don’t expect to influence ICANN’s actions. The reason that I invested my time to respond in your blog is not due to any expectation to influence ICANN at all; rather to validate what so many others already know from witnessing ICANN’s actions. ICANN will continue to do the bidding of entities like Verisign, to the exclusion of what is in the best interests of the general Internet public. Can you honestly say that you are surprised that so few people bother to post any comments? Seriously.
“In April 2007, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved certain domain registries to increase their prices. Domain registries are the private companies which manage the registration, technical operations, and control the allocation policies of the TLD’s for which they are responsible.
Domain registries VeriSign(.com, .net tld’s), Afilias(.info tld),
Neulevel (.biz tld) and Public Interest Registry(.org tld) applied for and received price increases and have announced they will be raising their wholesale prices to all registrars”
It’s obvious to me who has influence over ICANN, and it isn’t the people who would otherise post comments here.
Dave Zan 10.10.07 at 11:56 pm
I can’t help but largely agree with Styx’s comment above. ICANN’s actions over the past years (especially renewing VeriSign’s contract to manage the .Com Registry without so-called “public consultation”) haven’t been exactly…inspiring, to say it dryly.
While obviously the past can’t be changed, the present can be worked upon to hopefully change the future. And that especially includes how users “generally” perceive ICANN.
I have no problem to be proven wrong with ICANN’s subsequent actions.
Kieren McCarthy 10.11.07 at 1:09 am
Hi Styx,
I’m very glad you choose this example as I think it gets right to the heart of the changes that are in place and are ongoing, and in many ways was the reason that the changes started in the first place.
I think you’re right. ICANN did a very poor job of representing to the community what the decision-making process was with respect to the price rises in several gTLDs.
As you no doubt recall, these decisions were taken in response to a renegotiated settlement of the dotcom contract with VeriSign. As part of the new contract, VeriSign was allowed to increase its wholesale prices of dotcom domains, and in response other gTLD operators asked for the same right – which ICANN duly granted them in the interests of fairness within the market.
The dotcom contract negotiations were extremely difficult, not least because of the symbolism of the dotcom registry and because of the long history between VeriSign (formely Network Solutions) and ICANN, where it pre-dated ICANN on the Internet.
VeriSign was also suing ICANN – something that ICANN made clear repeatedly was having a damaging impact on its ability to hire staff as well as deal with constant ongoing issues.
With this difficult backdrop, the ICANN Board made its decision to approve the negotiated contract and it did so in what the Board members felt were the best interests of the organisation as a whole – as is their job.
It is not surprising that people didn’t agree because it was a very difficult and controversial decision. But the Board did what the Board occasionally has to do (the .xxx refusal is another example) and made the decision.
Where I think it failed was that the reasons for making that decision were not clearly run through with the community – and that has caused a lot of ill-will. The Board members of that time would no doubt refer to the hostility they were faced with as an explanation as to why they didn’t make more efforts to clearly explain their decision and thinking.
What the Board did do, I remember, was decide to change the way the ICANN meeting worked in Vancouver (in December 2005) and go around each supporting organisation and advisory committee in turn, as a group, in order to elicit everyone’s views. And that approach – where Board members go and sit in on others’ meetings and are asked questions – remains to this day.
Was the Board right?
I think you can argue that in retrospect the decision to agree the VeriSign contract as finally presented (it was reopened following community feedback and renegotiated – and it went through Congressional review) was in ICANN’s longer-term interests.
It helped bring an end to several ruinous lawsuits
It released a significant degree of resources
It put to bed a seven-year fight over authority at the very top of the Internet (VeriSign recognised ICANN formally)
After that storm, there has been relative calm – with the exception of .xxx. The released resources has seen ICANN able to hire more staff and move on with issues that had been stuck in limbo – you only have to look at the acceleration of the IDN process to see the positive benefits of that.
It has removed the “VeriSign question” – which was always going to be a seam of instability as long as it existed.
What about the consumer you say?
Yes, there are small price rises, but your disagreement is a point of principle rather than an issue of real economic harm. The reality is that the allowed-for price rises (which the registries don’t have to charge) means less than 50 cents for the consumer. Domain names are still immensely cheap. And if you look at the market, there has been significant growth, rather than reduction. So the knock-on effect is negligible.
What having the dotcom contract out the way has allowed for is much more focus to be placed on new gTLDs and IDNs – which are the future of the Internet. It is these new top-level domains that will dictate what the others do. If, for example, VeriSign discovers that the new TLDs see it losing business, they will do what they can to adjust and if they believe it is an issue of price, they will reduce their prices.
That’s how the competitive market works – and that is one of the principles of ICANN.
But getting back to the point of this post. You have chosen an excellent example because it was the dotcom decision (which led to the subsequent price rise approvals in the other registries) that led many to review ICANN’s accountability and transparency.
And it is that process that this blog post is trying to flag up. I’m not saying that the ICANN Board won’t make decisions in future that you won’t agree with. But what the new processes in place do allow for is issues to be tackled early on, for people to be made aware of the full facts, for any decisions made to be made openly and for far greater understanding of the issue. Plus it allows the feeling of the community to be clearly annunciated and easily followed through the process.
What does this mean in reality? Not that the Board will always be able to make decisions that please everybody, but that it will make fewer controversial decisions – because people will be able to reach consensus earlier. And that people will at least understand why that decision was made.
But controversial decisions are, of course, the exception rather than the rule. What improved participation and feedback systems means is many more decisions that are not controversial. ICANN as an organisation will be able to progress faster and more smoothly, rather than having to deal with crisis after crisis.
And *that* really is in the interests of everyone that uses the Internet.
Kieren
Kieren McCarthy 10.11.07 at 1:22 am
Hi Dave,
I appreciate the conciliatory gesture. It’s my job to look after input from the public and I intend to make sure it is heard and that it is simply given to information that is clearly explained.
I agree that there’s still plenty to be done to change perception though. Hopefully just having it all working smoothly people will gradually adjust their view of the organisation. I am optimistic that it will happen, and your comment has helped add to that feeling.
Cheers
Kieren
Nedra Weinreich 10.11.07 at 11:42 am
Hi,
I just have a quick question related to the story I just read in the WSJ about the testing of URLs in different languages ICANN is doing. I’m curious how you selected Yiddish, rather than Hebrew, as one of the languages, given that there are not many people around who still speak it. Thanks for any insight you can provide.
Kieren McCarthy 10.12.07 at 9:11 am
Hi Nedra,
You won’t be surprised to hear that you’re not the only person to have raised this. I have an answer here from Tina Dam, ICANN’s IDN project manager.
Tina says: “It was not a case of Yiddish rather than Hebrew. These are two different languages that both utilize the Hebrew script. When we were looking at which language to chose to translate the word test for, and hence develop the IDN TLD, we picked the ones where clear need had been expressed.
“However, the list of the eleven was up for comments and review and we had expected it to be expanded with a few additional languages that communities around the world would like to add. We did not get any such requests and so went ahead with the 11 we have today.
“However, please keep in mind that it is not about testing languages – it is about testing a technology. We do need to test the technology on both right-to-left languages and left-to-right languages – Yiddish, Arabic, Persian being the three of the former.
“The difference between Yiddish and Hebrew is that the Yiddish orthography includes elements that require some testing – these are not used in the Hebrew language. However, as mentioned that did not mean that we could not have had both languages in the test.
“Now, since the Yiddish character repertoire subsumes everything that is expected to be needed for the similar support of Hebrew, we are attempting to make the present facet of the IDNwiki suitable for use by both speech communities. ”
Kieren
Nedra Weinreich 10.15.07 at 9:27 pm
Hi Kieren,
Thanks for the response. I hope you don’t mind that I linked to your comment on the post I wrote about this on my blog.
Nedra
Stan Kulski 10.18.07 at 7:30 pm
ICANN has created dummy ombudsman, there is no place to complain about abuse of registrars like ENOM, with exception of lenghty and expensive court litigation.
ICANN is responsible for creation of system with loopholes which allow to unscrupulous registrars, like enom, to perform domain hijacking called PARKING and extracting ransom.
ICANN doesn’t care about infringement of basic laws of ownership – payment for domain is equal to the contract sale-purchase, however ICANN is responsible for creation of the system, in which rightful owner can be deprived by the unethical registrar domain, which is in control of the registrat.
I wonder how ICANN can listen if there are no two-way channels for communication with ICANN?
Kieren McCarthy 10.19.07 at 5:08 am
Of course not, Nedra.
I hope you continue to follow the IDN process and keep commenting on it.
Cheers
Kieren
Kieren McCarthy 10.19.07 at 5:42 am
Hi Stan,
This is a very timely comment. All of your points are valid – the only issue being that you clearly don’t believe ICANN is doing anything about the issues when it is.
* Ombudsman. There’s nothing “dummy” about the Ombudsman. What tends to happen is that people believe he has powers that he doesn’t. And that’s not because ICANN has set up some Ombudsman-lite role but rather people misunderstand what an Ombudsman’s role is right across the world in many different organisations.
What I think you are saying in your comment is that you don’t think ICANN is sufficiently accountable. And this is where your timing is terrific.
Two days ago, we opened a public comment period on a series of Accountability and Transparency Principles and Frameworks. These have been built up over a year and are now on their final public review period before going in front of the Board. There will also be a special meeting at the end of this month to discuss them.
One of those principles clearly spells out what systems are in place to keep ICANN accountable. It also spells out to some degree how they work. If you think something is lacking in any of this now is the idea time to point it out.
You can see an explanation and all the resources you need at http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#draft-mop-2007.
* Domain name tasting etc. ICANN is more than aware of the issues surrounding domain names. These issues are pretty new and ICANN has embarked on an extensive review of the issue. It has been producing reports and holding meetings and suggesting ways forward for most of this year, and that process is continuing.
You may argue that the process isn’t moving fast enough, but when you are talking about messing around with the very way that domain name are registered, it would be madness to rush it. A solution that is slightly wrong *will* create a bigger problem down the line.
I don’t want to swamp you with information, so this public comment period on the issue is probably the best place to start in order to find out what ICANN has done and is doing wrt this problem.
* Registrar complaints. In fact, it is the fact that most people in the Internet community don’t seem to be aware of the work that ICANN’s compliance unit has been doing for the past six months that we have sought to give its work a slightly higher profile.
Again, your timing is excellent. Yesterday, the compliance team released a 63-page report that covers the auditing work it has been doing on registries and registrars. We have also opened a public comment period on the report so you are able to say exactly what you think about the report, its approach, make suggestions, whatever you wish – the reason we have these public comment periods is precisely to elicit the views of people like yourself.
You can see the official announcement and find all the resources here.
* Legal status of domains. As to your final point about the legal status of domains. I’m afraid that’s just not ICANN’s role to define – nor do you want it to be. The issue of what domains are legally is a continuing battle in the law courts around the world, most notably of course the US courts.
There was a discussion about this very issue on this blog a few months ago. I will dig out the relevant link… here we go, follow this link to see a discussion about domain names, law, registrant powers etc etc.
I hope this answers your queries Stan, and also demonstrates that there is two-way communication going on – it is here in this response which, of course, you can also respond to.
Please get back if you want to any more information.
Kieren
Comments on this entry are closed.