seen from China
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Hungary
seen from United States
seen from Israel
seen from Canada
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from T1
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from China
WEBINAR 28 MAY 16:00 UTC – At-Large: GNSO Policy Development Processes 101
REGISTER | ADD TO CALENDAR | PERMALINK On Thursday, 28 May 2026, at 16:00-17:15 UTC, ICANN At-Large will host a webinar ‘GNSO Policy Development Processes 101‘. Justine Chew will unpack what it means for the ALAC and At-Large community to effectively participate in the Generic Names Supporting Organization’s Policy Development Processes (GNSO PDPs) specifically, and why such participation is…
Mar 9 2026 - ICANN 85 - GNSO: ISPCP Outreach Session
VIDEO | RECAP | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK On March 9 2026, the Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency (ISPCP ) of the Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) organized an Outreach Session at the ICANN 85 Community Forum in Mumbai. AI-driven analytics are transforming abuse detection and incident response. This forward-looking session explored real-world use cases, the…
My usually subdued husband has an awesome cymbal clash at around 0:17. Absoluetly Beautiful Concert!! @whitemochamusic #gnso #greaternewburghsymphonyorchestra @boscobelhg #marriedtotheorchestra #percussionismyfavorite #ihaveacrushonthepercussionist https://www.instagram.com/p/BzqS5-UDMY1/?igshid=1vonr4umhu9lt
Comments on ICANN R3 paper on making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected
A Working Group within ICANN's At-Large has produced a paper outlining a radical look at ICANN and ICANN's structure. This paper is called:
At-Large White Paper on Future Challenges entitled Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected (R3) [PDF, 109 KB]
And comes in several languages
Español [PDF, 160 KB]
Français [PDF, 164 KB]
Русский [PDF, 156 KB]
简体中文 [PDF, 224 KB]
العرب [PDF, 5.51 MB]
First I must out myself in relation to the R3 paper, I am a member of the At-Large Future Challenges WG that produced this paper. I was not an author, but I have been an active commentator. Though they did not take all my edits, they took many. I agreed with the release of the paper for community review even though there were edits I wanted done that did not get done.
Although I do not agree with everything in the R3 paper, I think it is a necessary thought piece.
For example, we all know that the GNSO is messed up. I think most everyone can recognize that the strict direemption of the Council into Houses and the Houses into Stakeholder Groups was a really bad idea that does not lead to consensus or even good management of the GNSO.
We see stakeholders who want to be involved but can't get involved because their don't fit the prevailing US vs.THEM organizational architecture.
We see attempts to shoehorn new stakeholders into groups that don't really fit.
We have inconsistent application for the Constituency/Stakeholder mandate from the Board.
In the Contracted Partie House, we see a situation where soon, just about every company will belong in both of the Stakeholder groups, as subsidiaries of the same company will be able join different Stakeholder groups.
In the NonContracted Parties House, we have to recognize that the world is not strictly divided between the Non-Commercial and Commercial and there are Registrant/User groups that have both aspects, and that there are a variety of technical stakeholders who need a better Stakeholder representation model.
We see that Intellectual and other Property interests come in both Commercial and Non-Commercial flavors; why can't both be part of the same Stakeholder group?
We see a constant attempt by some to say the GNSO Council is just a policy council and that it does not lead the GNSO, as part of their attempt to set up an independent leadership structure.
...
All sorts of issues and questions point to the GNSO needing a serious review. I think there is wide agreement that the GNSO needs to be be turned on its head and inside out. R3 gives us one context in which to think about it.
Mostly, though, we have to review the notion of the regulated, Registrars and Registries, having an effective veto in regard to the regulation of their activities. This is a vestige of the early days where the nature of the picket fence gave the illusion that a regular contract was being changed after signing. But once we realize that these contracts are not regular contracts but are part of the multistakeholder regulatory model, it becomes less obvious that Contracted Parties should have an effective veto over changes to the regulations. Certainly they should have a fully participatory set of roles and responsibilities in the modification of regulations, but never a veto. Until that gets fixed, ICANN remains vulnerable to calls of Conflict of Interest and malfeasance.
The current GNSO organization is the result of an experimental solution to the requirements of the previous GNSO review. This experiment has failed. It is time to undo it. I think the contributions from R3 should, and will, be fed into the analysis that is done on the upcoming GNSO review.
I think that ICANN is a new form of multistakeholder regulatory organization. It has certainly made this claim on many occasions. I think that the ICANN multistakeholder community should have something to say about the ccTLDs. It is ridiculous that ccTLDs are not bound by the same basic rules as the gTLDs. Sure, issues of administration have a sovereign aspect to them, but the basic registrant and user protection should be equivalent. I admit I have more sympathy for the ccTLD that focuses on their country, and its diaspora, than I do for those who walk and quack as though they were gTLDs; except, that is, for when it comes to responsibilities including registrant and user protection. I understand that this is linked to the nature of ICANN as an organization subject to California law. I have argued and keep arguing for progress on the evolution of becoming a free standing organization, with appropriate multistakeholder oversight, that is hosted by several countries without being subject to their political whim and whimsy. I understand the need for a continuing ability to make and enforce contracts and I think their are many countries that offer a solid basis for contractual agreement. Perhaps ICANN can learn to work with a set of contractual bases instead of just one. In any case, I think it is important that all TLDs have a similar basic regulatory aspect and R3 opens up this topic for discussion.
Some have argued that the only reason for R3 was because ALAC wanted to increase their power. I do not care that ALAC and GAC want to increase their power, in fact I think ALAC advice should be taken seriously, and I have argued for a long time that the ALAC should get the same by-laws based consideration as the GAC in terms of advice that reaches full and active consensus (and yes, I think the GAC criteria should be full and active consensus which it may or not be at the moment - who can tell). Likewise, the GNSO and the ccNSO want to hold on to power. What else is new? If power analysis is your thing, then everything is about power. When I was studying Chemistry in my long distant youth, I discovered that everything is about Chemistry - then dropped out of Chemistry in favor of Philosophy. And if [economics, gender theory, Political Science, Marxism, anthropology, queer theory, sociology ...] is your thing, then everything is about [economics, gender theory, Political Science, Marxism, anthropology, queer theory, sociology ...] . Personally I beleive in a multi-denominational analysis, and argue that part of the thought in regard to R3 is generally about organizational failure and that this must be taken seriously if we want to fix ICANN in a sustainable way.
There are those who stridently condem R3 and all other attempts to do serious review of ICANN in these 'dangerous times'.
They make veiled references to the boogeymen at the door that a ready to eviscerate our ICANN.
They say that criticism of ICANN is traitorous and delivers it unto its enemies.
In my view if we want to destroy ICANN I think it would help to just cross our arms and say how dare the ALAC criticize the GNSO, the ccNSO or anything else. How dare they say there is a Rhinoceros hiding in the room. Let's not commit suicide by shutting our minds to the views of others about the things that may be broken in our corner of Internet ecosystem,
ICANN's GNSO approves neocolonial restrictions on support for gTLD applicants from developing economies!
Today, the GNSO rejected a motion on a charter extension to the Joint AC/SO Working Group for gTLD Applicants from Developing Economies (JAS WG) that might have actually provided assistance for new applicants from developing economies. Instead they approved a charter extension that only provides a single kind of aid. The only type of help they approved was aid that would be provided by or through an incumbent partner or an established consultant.
Many of the types of aid approved in the ALAC charter extensions were excluded!
No application fee reductions;
No fund raising in order to give material assistance;
No use of windfall profits from auctions to help applicants from developing economies;
No help in establishing coordinated efforts by applicants from developing economies.
The only kind of aid the JAS WG is allowed to work on is aid that makes a applicant from a developing economy beholden and subject to the control of an incumbent or an expert.
In other words, the only type of aid the GNSO approved is neocolonial aid.
Neocolonialism is a method by which corporations and multinational corporations from developed nations find ways, such as partnerships and advisor-ships, to exploit the resources of post-colonial developing economies. The new gTLDs, especially those IDN gTLDs using local scripts and languages, are a rich resource open to exploitation. By making partnering the only way to get assistance, the incumbent will gain some share of every new gTLD that requires aid. Further, by not providing material aid, local populations will be at a disadvantage in developing their own linguistic and cultural resources, leaving those resources as low hanging fruit available for incumbents.
Restricting the type of assistance to partnerships and advisors, though these can be an ingredient of a full program that includes material assistance, is a form of neocolonialism. This is the case even if those in the Contracted Parties House (CPH) who tabled this motion and those in Non Contracted Parties House (NCPH) who went along with the motion and voted for it, do not know it is neocolonialism. Even if exploitation was the furthest thing from anyone's mind and they were only thinking of what was good for the incumbents and for their stakeholders, it is neocolonialism and it ignores the needs of developing economies.
And it is wrong.
What it is not, is a development conscious action!
What it is not, is a response to the GAC's advice that the new gTLD program be made accessible to developing economies!
The GNSO council went even further in that the motion that they approved gags the JAS WG by barring it from conveying its recommendations to the ICANN Board, the GAC or the community at large without first getting the approval of the GNSO. It might even gag the WG from being able to put out a statement regarding the utter inadequacy of the motion approved by the GNSO. The GNSO, in the process of protecting its gTLD sovereignty and its access to developing economy resources, is instituting military style top down chains of command in the ICANN bottom up organization.
These were the first major decision of the new 2011 GNSO council.
This does not bode well.
Incumbent ICANN Registrars & Registries create roadblocks to assisting gTLD applicants from developing economies.
Despite protestations to the contrary made at the beginning of the GNSO meeting in Cartagena about how much the incumbent Registries and and Registrars of the Contracted Parties House (CPH) care about helping gTLD applicants from developing economies, it is my opinion that they are seeking to cripple the group trying to provide a framework for development aid to applicants for new gTLDs from developing economies.
Background
Early in process of creating a new gTLD program, concerns were raised that the program was not being sufficiently supportive of people from developing economies. These issues always got a polite nod of the head, and then the process moved on. The final recommendations from the GNSO had very little to say about development support. And as member of the group that came up with these recommendations, I am ashamed that our work product missed that critical point. We worried about so many things, including intellectual property, morality and public order, protecting the reputation of minority communities, and protecting the interests of the incumbents. But in the end we said nothing about helping applicants from developing economies; the only possible mention of helping anyone was in the sub-text of what might happen with the windfall topics from auctions, should that be the method picked by the staff for deciding between contenting applications - as if there was any chance they would have chosen another method. Of course we did not know at that time that the expense for applications would be an order of magnitude greater than it had been in the previous round, but still we did not think of developing economy applicants. This is something that ICANN must remedy, and some people are working hard to do so.
It became obvious that something needed to be done when the first implementation drafts, aka Draft Applicant Guidebooks or DAG, appeared with price tags such as $185,000 USD for an application for a single name in addition to over-specified financial and technical obligations that would cost hundreds of thousands of USD. While these were seen as possibly reasonable for a technology entrepreneur with a Marina del Rey wallet, they were obviously prohibitive for anyone from a developing economy. The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) was the first to raise the alarm at the way the program was being shaped. In May and August of 2009, the GAC raised the issue that the costs were prohibitive for the developing world. For the most part their early warnings were ignored, after the appropriate nod of concern. It took until 13 March 2010 for there to be a Board resolution mandating that something be done to solve the problem of making the new gTLD program accessible to applicants from developing countries. That is, 5 years into the program, just before the end of the process, support for developing economies became a concern. Late, but at least it happened.
As a result of the Board resolution the Joint AC/SO (Advisory Committee, Supporting Organization) Working Group for support of gTLD applicants (JAS WG for short) was created. Within 10 months of meeting twice weekly or more, this group created a package of recommendations for ways in which applicants from developing economies could be helped. The types of assistance recommended for qualifying applicants include:
Application fee cost reduction
Sponsorship and other funding support
Modification to the continued financial support mechanism
Logistical support
Technical Support
Exception to rules concerning the separation of of Registries and Registrars.
It is important to note that this was a unified package that was the result of a bottom-up effort of many people, including participants from developing economies of what could be done. These recommendations are available online in the 6 UN Langauges.
The idea was that different types of aid would be required for different applicants. It was also the recommendation that ICANN volunteers and staff would work together to create the process for providing the aid. Time is short, and we all need to pitch in to reach this important goal. One of the important tasks has to do with fund raising and distribution. One of the special concerns in fund distribution, including any auction windfall profits mentioned above, is that management of these funds not become part of ICANN's budget management. Especially when it came to the windfall from auctions, these were not to be lost inside the ICANN budget, but rather be applied to helping new gTLD applicants with the multi-year expenses required by the new gTLD program. Additionally, it was understood that the prospect of raising funds to help new applicants would also need to be handled separately from ICANN funds. It was, therefore, recommended that in order to both raise monies that could be given in aid and to handle any auction monies, an external fund of some sort would need to be established as soon as possible in order to be ready by the time the new gTLD process started.
The JAS WG knows what work needs to be done and is ready to do it - though they are looking for more volunteers to do the work (hint, hint). It was time for next steps.
Both the ICANN Board of Directors and the GAC encouraged the JAS WG to keep working and to take those next steps in their work, i.e actually figuring out how to do what it was recommending be done. To this end the ALAC approved a motion to extend the charter so that it could do exactly that. As the second of its chartering organizations, the GNSO Council, was also asked to approve a motion extending the charter of the working group. It was at that point that the Contracted Parties House (CPH), composed of incumbent Registrars and Registries originally informed the JAS WG chairs that they would unanimously vote against the proposed charter. After a set of conversations meant to try and find a compromise with the CPH, and with no attempt by the CPH to compromise, they eventually offered an alternate motion that, if approved, will cripple the efforts of the JAS WG.
Why is the CPH motion so crippling
(Note the text of all of the motions is included below)
In the charter extension approved by the ALAC there is a work item assigned to each of the recommendations made by the JAS WG. In the incumbent CPH proposal they have removed half of the work items. Instead of mandating the JAS WG to propose methods for fulfilling all of the recommendations, they only mandate the JAS WG to:
Propose criteria for defining need;
Propose methods for determining need;
Propose methods to determine what sort of aid applicants should get;
Make proposal how applicants could go about seeking aid.
These are of course important and do match some of the work items in the charter approved by the ALAC; about half of them. They left out, however, any further work to raise funds, to find methods to deal with funds or methods to actually provide assistance. Instead they want the JAS WG to propose a way to determine who needs aid, to determine what sort of aid they need and then to tell them how to go pull themselves up by their own boot straps. The want to bar the group from doing any work that might actually provide any sort of aid. That is what I mean by crippling the effort.
Without making any assumption about the intentions of the incumbents in the approach they take, the approach they are offering is the neo-colonial way of doing things. Instead of giving people the leg up they need to start a registry in a developing country, the type of aid that would be provided would restrict helping the applicants find a northern partner to help them. Instead of helping the applicant from a developing economy with lower fees, grants or loans that would help them do a local start-up registry service provider or to gain accreditation as a registrar, the proposal only provides help with pointers on where to find incumbent registry service providers, top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians. And while this a form of aid the JAS WG suggests, it should not be the only type of aid available.
I believe that the CPH motion go one step further. In paragraph 4 of their proposed motion it declares that the JAS WG must not report to anyone other than the chartering organizations (the GNSO Council and the ALAC) and seeks to restrict the JAS WG from communicating directly with the ICANN Board, the GAC or the community at large. The incumbent Registrars and Registries in the GNSO want to force all communications through a military style chain of command that goes through them. This top-down control is wholly inappropriate in a bottom-up organization. Yes, the chartering organizations are asked to endorse the work and are responsible for managing the process to make sure that it is inclusive, fair and transparent; but they are not empowered to restrict the ability of a WG to communicate as it sees fit with other parts of the organization.
A final thing I need to explain is why I believe that this crippling motion is the responsibility of the entire Contracted Parties House of incumbent Registries and Registrars instead of just the responsibility of the council members who made the motion and seconded it. These stakeholder groups engage in the practice of voting in blocks where their council representatives are not permitted an individual vote, but must vote as the leadership in the stakeholder groups have decided. I was informed by both incumbent groups, the Registries Stakeholder Group and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, that they would vote against the charter approved by the ALAC and can only assume that the new motion made and seconded by CPH council members is one that both incumbent stakeholder groups in the CPH will support.
Having been the co-chair of the JAS WG during the first half of its work, though I have since been replaced by a new co-chair from a developing economy, I am very sad to see the work we did possibly rendered useless by these actions on the part of the Registries and Registrars. I am concerned that the conflict over the motion has more to do with the CPH not understanding the priorities of a development agenda and the responsibilities of Northern wealth, than any sort of mean spirit. During the recent meeting in Cartagena, while I was explaining the work of the JAS WG, many good and sincere GNSO members from registries and registrars came up to me and explained that they had worked hard, started from nothing and had pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. They saw no reason why those from developing countries should not do the same. They did not see that the needs of those in developing economies are special. They did not understand that it was incumbent on the rest of us to actually help them join our club. They did not understand that it is easier to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you have boots.
Getting the work of the JAS WG to support applicants from developing countries done correctly is an imperative for ICANN. It is an imperative that I hope is not crippled by a bad charter. I think the alternate motion offered by the CPH is a bad charter that should be rejected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter proposals for reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter extension as approved by ALAC meeting on 11 Nov 2010
Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items
and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and
In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:
the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.
Resolved:
1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives:
a) Establish the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.
b) Definition of mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered;
c) Establishing a framework, including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;
d) Establish methods for coordinating the assistance, and discussions on the extent of such coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers; e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship.
e) Discuss and establish methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.
f) Establish methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties. g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts establish policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding
h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance.
2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter extension as offered by the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO:
Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and
In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.12.10 which reiterated its 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:
the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.
Resolved:
1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following limited objectives:
a) Propose criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should seek out expert advice in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.
b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should be offered;
d) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from registry service providers.
e) Propose methods for applicants to seek out assistance from other top-level domain consultants, translators, and technicians, in the application for, and administration of, a new top-level domain)
2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.
3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the respective SO/AC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Compromise solution offered by NCSG council member and pending a vote.
Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; and
In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:
the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support.
Resolved:
1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is extended to include the following objectives:
a) Propose the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.
b) Propose mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help should be offered;
c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective (a) of this charter amendment.
d) Discuss with Backend Registry Service Providers the extent of coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers (e.g. brokering the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship) and propose methods for coordinating that assistance.
e) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational quality of the relationship.
f) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and assistance volunteered by third parties.
g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with funding
h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee that could be waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated.
i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.
2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should result from the working group’s work.
