Re: Fw: [wg-b] ICANN & Working Group B - History and Structure

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Dennis
It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to resign. I hope you'll reconsider.

I acknowledge the problems you identify below, but I do not feel that M. Palage is
responsible for them. I am too busy to fully explain my reasons (that is part of the
problem all of us face).

--MM

d3nnis wrote:

> ----------
> > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 08:00:30
> > From: 109irb81drr1
> > To: mpalage@infonetworks.com
> > Cc: edyson@edventures.com
> > Subject: Re: [wg-b] ICANN & Working Group B  - History and Structure
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > First we had a straw vote in which 'sleeper' voters who had never
> > participated turned out in droves to support your position, and some of us
> > asked for the group to define whether the practice was acceptable.
> > The Chair's ambiguous status,  and the closing of LA to remote participation
> > made it impossible,
> >
> > Next, our  Chair departs the NC, and is replaced on the NC in a concealed
> > election with one of the major 'sleepers' above. Yet WG-B is never informed,
> > not even by its 'ex-chair' (until yesterday, over a month later).   This
> > renders Working Group B
> > unaware of its Chair  (even though we are asking 'Who?') further postponing
> > any consideration of these questions.
> >
> > Finally, during this phony  information blackout, you 'announced' WG-B's new
> > mission to produce position papers, adding a requirement to do so on a tight
> > schedule.
> >
> > In an open organization,  the voting issues would have been addressed,  the
> > election would have been publicized, and the chairs would have consulted the
> > membership regarding the products and the timelines.
> >
> > These are the same tactics that were used to railroad Working Group A.  Like
> > it,
> > Working Group B is dominated by trade associations.
> >
> > This working group process desperately needs an independent review by an
> > outside party.  I hope the Merkle grants to the Jimmy Carter Center will
> > cover it.
> >
> > In the meantime, individuals are little more than window dressing in this
> > Working Group.   I resign.
> >
> >
> > >Dennis Schaefer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Dennis
> >
> > ----------
> > > For the benefit of those individuals that have recently joined the group,
> > > let me provide a little back ground into ICANN's structure and Working Group
> > > B's history. I believe this tutorial will be of value to those trying to
> > > understand what ICANN is and how it works. This will also help explain some
> > > of the valid concerns voiced by individuals about the ICANN process.
> > >
> > > ICANN is composed of three organizations: the Domain Name Supporting
> > > Organization (DNSO), the Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO) and the
> > > Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The PSO and ASO are concerned with
> > > almost exclusively technical issues. The DNSO has the honor of having the
> > > largest concentration of lawyers in the ICANN process. The DNSO has a rather
> > > complex structure. Within the DNSO there are seven constituencies: (1) the
> > > country code top-level domains (cutlass), i.e. .UK, .ca, etc.; (2) the
> > > global top-level domain names (gTLDs) i.e. .com, .net and .org; (3) the ISP
> > > and connectivity providers; (4) Commercial and business entities; (5) the
> > > registrar constituency, i.e. those responsible for registering domains in
> > > the global top-level domains; (6) the intellectual property and
> > > anti-counterfeiting constituency; and (7) the non-commercial domain name
> > > holders.
> > >
> > > Sitting atop the DNSO is the Names Counsel. The Names Counsel is composed of
> > > three elected representatives from each constituency. This counsel functions
> > > as an interface to the ICANN board. At Berlin in addition to recognizing
> > > each of the above referenced constituencies, the ICANN board tasked the
> > > creation of three Working Groups to analyze the WIPO recommendations:
> > > Working Group A (Uniform Dispute Policy); Working Group B (Famous
> > > Trademarks); and Working Group C (new global top-level domains).  Within the
> > > ICANN structure, Working Groups are part of the DNSO.
> > >
> > > After the ICANN Board's resolutions in Berlin, Jonathan Cohen, an interim
> > > Names Counsel representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency,
> > > was named co-chair of Working Group A and Working Group B. Serving as
> > > co-chair with Jonathan on Working Group A was Amadeu Abril a Names Counsel
> > > representative from the Registrar Constituency. As with almost everything
> > > associated with a newly formed organization, many procedures and rules are
> > > made up as necessity dictated. Working Group A was tasked with a very
> > > difficult challenge to make recommendations on the Uniform Dispute Policy
> > > within a few weeks. In an effort to meet this aggressive timeline, the
> > > Working Group A chairs were forced to limit the number of participants in
> > > the group and on the issues on which they could vote.  These issues were
> > > vigorously challenged both prior to and at the Santiago ICANN meeting.
> > >
> > > In an effort to respond to challenges that the Names Counsel was stacking
> > > the deck, it was agreed that each Working Group would elect a co-chair. That
> > > is how I became co-chair of Working Group B prior to the Santiago meeting.
> > > After the Santiago meeting Jonathan announced his intention to run for the
> > > ICANN board. Because of his political activities he assumed a rather passive
> > > role in the Working Group B process.
> > >
> > > After Santiago, several participants raised the issue of whether safeguards
> > > were needed in connection with famous mark or whether the newly adopted
> > > uniform dispute policy in connection with existing remedies were adequate to
> > > protect famous trademark holder's interests.
> > >
> > > Learning from Working Group A's criticisms, I decided that it was best to
> > > start with a clean slate and put to vote whether safeguards were needed. The
>
> > > unedited results of this first formal vote were as follows:
> > >
> > > Option A: 30 - Some type of mechanism, yet to be determined, is necessary in
> > > connection with famous trademarks and the operation of the Domain Name
> > > System.
> > > Option B: 4 - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for the protection of
> > > famous marks, because other mechanisms are adequate
> > > Option C: 0 - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for the protection of
> > > famous marks, because it exceeds the scope of ICANN's authority
> > > Option D: 7 - Both Option B & C
> > > Option E: 0 - I choose to abstain from the voting process at this time
> > >
> > > Following the announcement of these results and resolving some challenges to
> > > the voting process, I made a post on 10/26/99 announcing the following
> > > timeline of activity:
> > >
> > > Now to Nov. 17th - a three week position statement period. We have consensus
> > > on mechanisms now we must put these mechanisms down on paper to look at the
> > > strengths and weaknesses.
> > >
> > > Nov. 17th to Dec 1st - a two week comment period.
> > >
> > > Dec 2nd through the 5th - Formulation of questionnaire/survey to identify
> > > points of consensus and point of contention.
> > >
> > > Dec 6th through the 10th - Voting on these issues
> > >
> > > Dec 11th through the 18th - Co-chairs prepare draft report for group
> > > comments
> > >
> > > Dec 19th through 26th - Comments on the draft report
> > >
> > > Dec 27th through Dec 31st -  Submission of Interim report to the Names
> > > Counsel
> > >
> > > January 1st Y2K brings an end to civilization as we know it and Working
> > > Group B's interim report become meaningless :) (Just kidding)
> > >
> > > To further complicate matters, Jonathan Cohen was elected to the ICANN board
> > > and had to resign as co-chair of Working Group B. It was my original
> > > intention to hold an election among the Working Group B participants to
> > > elect a new co-chair.  It then came to my attention that according to the
> > > interim report of Working Group D (tasked with defining procedures for
> > > Working Groups), it mandated that the initial co-chairs be a Names Counsel
> > > member and that his/her title be supervisory co-chair. However, Working
> > > Group D had not addressed the issue of how to handle a co-chair replacement
> > > for either the elected or names counsel co-chair.  After talking with
> > > different names counsel representatives they agreed that the term names
> > > counsel liaison co-chair was a better term.
> > >
> > > It was my original intention to hold a substantive meeting in Los Angeles to
> > > discuss the objectives of the Working Group. Unfortunately, ICANN had no
> > > money to pay for a speaker phone or a telephone bridge. Because of the lack
> > > of remote participation, the group held a rather informal discussion, i.e.
> > > we went around the room and introduced our self to each other, discussed how
> > > to increase participation, discussed the proposed timeline, the need for a
> > > new chair in light of Jonathan's resignation, etc.  Most of the discussion
> > > was background info for the benefit of those new participants that were
> > > joining the group.
> > >
> > > I would now like to address some concerns raised by Dennis Schaefer in
> > > connection with my role as co-chair of Working Group B. First, I would like
> > > to apologize for Dennis taking off from work to participate in the failed
> > > telephone conference. However, I do believe Dennis that you did participate
> > > in the General Assembly Webcast where I explained to you remotely why the
> > > telephone conference did not materialize. Moreover, I made the point to the
> > > General Assembly that inadequate funding seriously limits the ability of a
> > > Working Group to engage in meaningful outreach.
> > >
> > > Second, I am sorry that you feel that my communication style favors
> > > concealment. Within regard to the election/appointment of a new co-chair, it
> > > was my intention to have the Working Group select the names counsel
> > > representative most familiar with the dynamics of  the working group. Some
> > > constituencies have not elected their Names Counsel replacements (Note: All
> > > three individuals elected to the ICANN board were Names Counsel
> > > representatives). My fear was a names counsel representative being appointed
> > > that did not understand the history of the working group. Believe me, I
> > > welcome a helping hand.  In order to silence any concerns about my potential
> > > conflict as acting as sole co-chair of Working Group B, I will request the
> > > Names Counsel to designate their mandatory co-chair in their next
> > > teleconference since that is what the current resolutions require.
> > >
> > > As I have repeated stated to this group it is not my intent to be viewed as
> > > a benevolent dictator but as an individual focused on increasing outreach
> > > and building consensus.
> > >
> > > Welcome to the ICANN soap opera. Hopefully this information gives everyone a
> > >  little background into the concerns shared by some of the participants on
> > > this list. These concerns are valid because the integrity of the outcome of
> > > this working group is directly dependent upon the integrity of the process.
> > >
> > > However, the fact remains that we have a lot of work to do and I look
> > > forward to reading everyone's position papers or comments.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Michael D. Palage
> > >
> > >
> >