The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
ICANN takes one step forward in its human rights and accountability commitments
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/article-19-akriti-bopanna-and-ephraim-percy-kenyanito-december-16-2019-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments
<b>Akriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy Kenyanito take a look at ICANN's Implementation Assessment Report for the Workstream 2 recommendations and break down the key human rights considerations in it. Akriti chairs the Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights at ICANN and Ephraim works on Human Rights and Business for Article 19, leading their ICANN engagement.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The article was first<a class="external-link" href="https://www.article19.org/resources/blog-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments/"> published on Article 19</a> on December 16, 2019</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN is the international non-profit organization that brings together various stakeholders to create policies aimed at coordinating the Domain Name System. Some of these stakeholders include representatives from government, civil society, academia, the private sector, and the technical community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">During the recently concluded 66th International Meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in Montreal (Canada); the ICANN board adopted by consensus the recommendations contained within the Work Stream 2 (WS2) Final Report. This report was generated as part of steps towards accountability after the September 30th 2016 U.S. government handing over of its unilateral control over ICANN, through its previous stewardship role of the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability are seen as a big step ahead in the incorporation of human rights in ICANN’s various processes, with over 100 recommendations on aspects ranging from diversity to transparency. An Implementation Team has been constituted which comprises the Co-chairs and the rapporteurs from the WS2 subgroups. They will primarily help the ICANN organization in interpreting recommendations of the groups where further clarification is needed on how to implement the same. As the next step, an Implementation Assessment Report has recently been published which looks at the various resources and steps needed. The steps are categorized into actions meant for one of the 3; the ICANN Board, Community and the ICANN organization itself. These will be funded by ICANN’s General Operating Fund, the Board and the org.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The report is divided into the following 8 issues: 1) Diversity, 2) Guidelines for Good Faith, 3) Recommendations for a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights, 4) Jurisdiction of Settlement of Dispute Issues, 5) Recommendations for Improving the ICANN Office of the Ombudsman, 6) Recommendations to increase SO/ AC Accountability, 7) Recommendations to increase Staff Accountability and 8) Recommendations to improve ICANN Transparency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This blog will take a look at the essential human rights related considerations of the report and how the digital rights community can get involved with the effectuation of the recommendations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Diversity</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The core issues concerning the issue of diversity revolve around the need for a uniform definition of the parameters of diversity and a community discussion on the ones already identified; geographic representation, language, gender, age, physical disability, diverse skills and stakeholder constituency. An agreed upon definition of all of these is necessary before its Board approval and application consistently through the various parts of ICANN. In addition, it is also required to formulate a standard template for diversity data collection and report generation. This sub group’s recommendations are estimated to be implemented in 6-18 months. Many of the recommendations need to be analyzed for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as collecting of information relating to disability. For now, the GDPR is only referenced with no further details on how steps considered will either comply or contrast the law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Good faith Guidelines</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Empowered Community (EC) which includes all the Supporting Organizations, At-Large-Advisory-Committee and Government Advisory Council, are called upon to conceptualize guidelines to be followed when individuals from the EC are participating in Board Removal Processes. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Central to the human rights conversation and finally approved, is the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. However the report does not give a specific timeline for its implementation, only mentioning that this process will take more than 12 months. The task within this is to establish practices of how the core value of respecting human rights will be balanced with other core values while developing ICANN policies and execution of its operations. All policy development processes, reviews, Cross Community Working Group recommendations will need a framework to consider and incorporate human rights, in tandem with the Framework of Interpretation. It will also have to be shown that policies and recommendations sent to the Board have factored in the FOI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Transparency</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The recommendations focus on the following four key areas as listed below:<br />1. Improving ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP).<br />2. Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with Governments.<br />3. Improving Transparency of Board Deliberations.<br />4. Improving ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistleblower Protection).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The bulk of the burden for implementation is put on ICANN org with the community providing oversight and ensuring ICANN lives up to its commitments under various policies and laws. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>How the ICANN community can contribute to this work</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This is a defining moment on the future of ICANN and there are great opportunities for the ICANN multistakeholder community to continue shaping the future of the Internet. Some of the envisioned actions by the community include:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>monitoring and assessing the performance of the various ICANN bodies, and acting on the recommendations that emerge from those accountability processes. This will only be done through collaborative formulation of processes and procedures for PDPS, CCWGs etc to incorporate HR considerations and subsequently implementation of the best practices suggested for improving SO/ACs accountability and transparency;</li>
<li>conducting diversity assessments to inform objectives and strategies for diversity criteria;</li>
<li>supporting contracted parties through legal advice for change in their agreements when it comes to choice of law and venue recommendations;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">contributing to conversations where the Ombudsman can expand his/her involvement that go beyond current jurisdiction and authority</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/article-19-akriti-bopanna-and-ephraim-percy-kenyanito-december-16-2019-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/article-19-akriti-bopanna-and-ephraim-percy-kenyanito-december-16-2019-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy KenyanitoFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNIANAInternet Governance2019-12-19T11:35:16ZBlog EntryICANN 65 De-briefing Meeting
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting
<b>The Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) organized an ICANN65 de-briefing meeting on July 16, 2019. Akriti Bopanna remotely presented on the Human Rights related developments that took place at the Marrakech meeting, over the course of the 4 days.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti's updates related to Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability, the Government Advisory Council's options in incorporating HR in their communication to the Board, their interest in our Human Rights Impact Assessment work and having a high interest session on the same at ICANN66. She also spoke about her contributions to the ICANN Board on their Anti-Harassment Policy along with details on the working group established to discussing the policy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-21T15:02:03ZNews ItemDIDP #34 On granular detail on ICANN's budget for policy development process
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-34-on-granular-detail-on-icanns-budget-for-policy-development-process
<b>ICANN has Advisory Committees which help guide the policy recommendations that the ICANN community develops while its Supporting Organizations are charged with developing policy recommendations for a particular aspect of ICANN's operations. Supporting Organizations are composed of volunteers from the community. ICANN publishes a combined budget for all these bodies under the head of policy development and CIS inquired about the financial resources allocated to each of them specifically. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ICANN budgets are published for public comment yet the community does not have supporting documents to illustrate how the numbers were estimated or the rationale for allocation of the resources. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to the internal budgeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This DIDP is concerned with the policy development budget which, as Stephanie Perrin of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group pointed out, was merely 5% of ICANN’s total budget, a number significantly low for a policy making organization. Thus, the information we request is a detailed breakdown for the budgets for every Advisory Council as well as Supporting Organizations for the previous fiscal year. You can find the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-on-budget/">attached request here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-34-on-granular-detail-on-icanns-budget-for-policy-development-process'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-34-on-granular-detail-on-icanns-budget-for-policy-development-process</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNDIDPInternet Governance2019-07-06T01:23:55ZBlog EntryICANN 65
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65
<b>Akriti Bopanna attended ICANN 65 in Marrakech, Morocco from 24 - 27 June 2019. </b>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti spoke on ICANN and Human Rights at a session organized by the At-Large and Non-Commercial Users Constituency.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Government Advisory Council discussed how government representatives can get involved in the Human Rights Impact Assessment work which the working party that she co-chairs on Human Rights at ICANN has been conducting. Akriti spoke on the feasibility of organizing a High Interest Session on Human Rights at ICANN66.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Akriti participated in a public meeting of ICANN's Board on their Anti-Harassment Policy and my suggestions/remarks on improving the samte were received well.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-06T01:08:36ZNews ItemICANN Masterclass
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass
<b>ICANN organized a masterclass in Bangalore on June 19, 2019.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was ICANN's first-ever such initiative within civil society to inform and spread awareness about their functioning. The workshop was conducted by Mary Wong who is the Vice President for Strategic Comunications Operations, Planning and Engagement and is a member of the Policy Team performing global policy development work. She was joined by Samiran Gupta who is the Head of India for ICANN. He is the primary representative of ICANN in the country and responsible for all stakeholder engagements here.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda</h3>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<ul>
<li>10.00 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.: Introduction to ICANN and the role of ICANN Org to facilitate the community’s work </li>
<li>10.45 a.m. - 12.00: Tea break</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">12.00 - 1.30 p.m.: ICANN’s Policy Development Process (will be conducted in an interactive mode to simulate a Policy Development Process working group meeting). </li>
<li>1.30 p.m - 2.30 p.m.: Lunch</li>
<li>2.30 p.m - 3.30 p.m.: The role of Governmental Advisory Committee (India’s GAC-related engagement in specific terms). </li>
<li>3.30 p.m. - 3.45 p.m.: Tea break</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">3.45 p.m - 4.30 p.m.: Open Q&A session.(Also open so that in case prior segments over-run, we still have some time on hand to complete the agenda comfortably). </li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-masterclass</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminICANNInternet Governance2019-06-22T03:57:07ZNews ItemCIS Response to ICANN's proposed renewal of .org Registry
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-28-2019-cis-response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry
<b>We thank ICANN for the opportunity to comment on this issue of its proposed renewal of the .org Registry Agreement with the operator, Public Interest Registry (PIR). Supporting much of the community , we too find severe issues with the proposed agreement. These centre around the removal of price caps and imposing obligations being currently deliberated in an ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP). </b>
<h3>Presumption of Renewal</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has, in the past, questioned the need for a presumption of renewal in registry contracts and it is important to emphasize this <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/why-presumption-of-renewal-is-unsuitable-for-the-current-regi stry-market-structure">within the context of this comment as well</a>. We had, also, asked ICANN for their rationale on having such a practice with reference to their contract with Verisign to which they responded saying:</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">“Absent countervailing reasons, there is little public benefit, and some significant potential for disruption, in regular changes of a registry operator. In addition, a significant chance of losing the right to operate the registry after a short period creates adverse incentives to <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contr acts-a-good-thing">favor short term gain over long term investment</a>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This logic can presumably be applied to the .org registry, as well, yet a re-auction of ,even, legacy top-level domains can only serve to further a fair market, promote competition and ensure that existing registries do not become complacent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These views were supported in the course of the PDP on Contractual Conditions - Existing Registries in 2006 wherein competition was seen useful for better pricing, operational performance and contributions to registry infrastructure. It was also noted that most service industries incorporate a presumption of competition as opposed to one of renewal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry"> </a></p>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry"> <strong>Download the file</strong></a> to access our full response.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-28-2019-cis-response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-28-2019-cis-response-to-icanns-proposed-renewal-of-org-registry</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNIANAInternet Governance2019-04-28T02:16:40ZBlog EntryDIDP #33 On ICANN's 2012 gTLD round auction fund
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund
<b>This DIDP was filed to inquire about the state of the funds ICANN received from the last gTLD auctions.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, after years of deliberation ICANN opened the application round for new top level domains and saw over 1930 applications. Since October 2013, delegation of these extensions commenced with it still going on. However, 7 years since the round was open there has been no consensus on how to utilize the funds obtained from the auctions. ICANN until its last meeting was debating on the legal mechanisms/ entities to be created who will decide on the disbursement of these funds. There is no clear information on how those funds have been maintained over the years or its treatments in terms of whether they have been set aside or invested etc. Thus, our DIDP questions ICANN on the status of these funds and can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-33">found here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The response to the DIDP received on 24th April, 2019 states that that even though the request asked for information, rather than documentation, our question was answered. Reiterating that the DIDP mechanism was</span><span> developed to provide documentation rather than information.</span><span> </span><span>It stated that on 25 October 2018, Resolution 2018.10.25.23 was passed that compels the President and CEO to allocate $36 million to the Reserve Fund. The gTLD auction proceeds were allocated to separate investment accounts, and the interest accruing from the proceedings was in accordance with the new gTLD Investment Policy.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2019-07-09T15:51:47ZBlog EntryCIS Comment on ICANN's Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-february-8-2019-comment-on-icann-draft-fy-20-operating-plan-and-budget
<b>At the Centre for Internet and Society, we are grateful for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed draft of ICANN’s FY20 Operating Plan and Budget along with their Five-Year Operating Plan Update. As part of the public comment process, ICANN provided a list of documents which can be found here that included their highlights of the budget, the total draft budget for FY20, an operating plan segregated by portfolios, amongst others.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The following are our comments on relevant aspects from the different documents:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are several significant undertakings which have not found adequate support in this budget, chief among them being the implementation of the ICANN Workstream 2 recommendations on Accountability. The budget accounts for any expenses that arise from WS2 as emanating from its contingency fund which is a mere 4%. Totalling more than 100 recommendations across 8 sub groups, execution of these would require significant expenditure. Ideally, this should have been budgeted for in the FY20 budget considering the final report was submitted in June, 2018 and conversations about its implementation have been carried out ever since. It is wondered if this is because the second Workstream does not have the effectuation of its recommendations in its mandate and hence it is easier for ICANN to be slow on it.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> As a member of the community deeply interested in integrating human rights better in ICANN’s various processes, it is concerning to note the glacial pace of the approval of the aforementioned recommendations especially coupled with the lack of funds allocated to it. Further, there is 1 one person assigned to work on the WS2 implementation work which seems insufficient for the magnitude of work involved.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A topical issue with ICANN currently is its tussle with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and despite the prominence and extent of the legal burden involved, resources to complying with it have not been allocated. Again, it is within the umbrella of the contingency budget.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds is also, presently, developing recommendations on how to distribute the proceeds. It is unclear where these will be funded from since their work is funded by the core ICANN budget yet it is assumed that the recommendations will be funded by the auction proceeds. Almost 7 years after the new gTLD round was open, it is alarming that ICANN has not formulated a plan for the proceeds and are still debating the merits of the entity which would resolve this question, as recently as the last ICANN meeting in October, 2018.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another important policy development process being undertaken right now is the Working Group who is reviewing the current new gTLD policies to improve the process by proposing changes or new policies. There are no resources in the FY20 budget to implement the changes that will arise from this but only those to support the Working Group activities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lastly, the budgets lack information on how much each individual RIR contributes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Staff costs</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN’s internal costs on their personnel have been rising for years and slated to account for more than half their annual budget with an estimated 56% or $76.3 million in the next financial year. The community has been consistent in calling upon them to revise their staff costs with many questioning if the growth in staff is justified.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> There was criticism from all quarters such as the GNSO Council who stated that it is “<i>not convinced that the proposed budget funds the policy work it needs to do over the coming year”.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup><b><sup>[4]</sup></b></sup></a> </i>The excessive use of professional service consultants has come under fire too.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As pointed out in a mailing list, in comments on the FY19 budget, <i>every single constituency and stakeholder group</i> remarked that personnel costs presented too high a burden on the budget. One of the suggestions presented by the NCSG was to relocate positions from from the LA headquarters to less expensive countries such as those in Asia. This can be seen from the high increase this budget of $200,000 in operational costs though no clear breakdown of that entails was given.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The view seems to be that ICANN repeatedly chooses to retain higher salaries while reducing funding for the community. This is even more of an issue since there employment remuneration scheme is opaque. In a DIDP I filed enquiring about the average salary across designations, gender, regions and the frequency of bonuses, the response was either to refer to their earlier documents which do not have concrete information or that the relevant documents were not in their possession.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">ICANN Fellowship</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The budget of the fellowship has been reduced which is an important initiative to involve individuals in ICANN who cannot afford the cost of flying to the global ICANN meetings. The focus should be not only be on arriving at a suitable figure for the funding but also to ensure that people who either actively contribute or are likely to are supported as opposed to individuals who are already known in this circle.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Again, our attempts at understanding the Fellowship selection were met with resistance from ICANN. In a DIDP filed regarding it with questions such as if anyone had received it more than the maximum limit of thrice and details on the selection criteria, no clarity was provided.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Lobbying and Sponsorship</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN 63 in Barcelona, I enquired about ICANN’s sponsorship strategies and how the decision making is done with respect to which all events in each region to sponsor and for a comprehensive list of all sponsorship ICANN undertakes and receives. I was told such a document would be published soon but in the 4 months since then, none can be found. It is difficult to comment on the budget for such a team where there is not much information on the work it specifically carries out and the impact of such sponsoring activities. When questioned to someone on their team, I was told that it depends on the needs of each region and events that are significant in such regions. However without public accountability and transparency about these, sponsorship can be seen as a vague heading which could be better spent on community initiatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Talking of Transparency, it has also been pointed out that the Information Transparency Initiative has 3 million dollars set aside for its activities in this budget. It sounds positive yet with no deliverables to show in the past 2 years, it is difficult to ascertain the value of the investment in this initiative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lobbying activities do not find any mention in the budget and neither do the nature of sponsorship from other entities in terms of whether it is travel and accommodation of personnel or any other kind of institutional sponsorship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-fy20-17dec18-en.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> http://domainincite.com/22680-community-calls-on-icann-to-cut-staff-spending</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-february-8-2019-comment-on-icann-draft-fy-20-operating-plan-and-budget'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-february-8-2019-comment-on-icann-draft-fy-20-operating-plan-and-budget</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNInternet Governance2019-02-12T23:44:46ZBlog EntryICANN Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability
<b>One of the most significant initiatives to improve the accountability of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) commenced in 2014, when the Cross Community Working Group on Accountability was created. Its role was to develop a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community. This resulted in the first Work Stream (WS1) recommendations, which were eventually approved and incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN in 2016. These included a provision expressing the need for a second WS since the first one, done on a tight deadline,did not cover all the requisite issues. Instead WS1 only focused on issues that were needed to complete the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) transition. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the ICANN meeting in March of 2017 in Finland, the second Work Stream (WS2) was launched. The Cross Community Working Group submitted their final report at the end of June 2018 and the purpose of this blog is to look at the main recommendations given and the steps ahead to its implementation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new Workstream was structured into the following 8 independent sub groups as per the topics laid down in the WS1 final report, each headed by a Rapporteur:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. Diversity</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors. (Guidelines for Good Faith)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (HR-FOI)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4. Jurisdiction</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. Office of the Ombuds</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. Supporting Organization/ Advisory Committee Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">7. Staff Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">8. ICANN Transparency</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>1. </b><b><span>DIVERSITY Recommendations </span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub-group on Diversity suggested ways by which ICANN can define, measure, report, support and promote diversity. They proposed 7 key factors to guide all diversity considerations: Language, Gender, Age, Physical Disability, Diverse skills, Geographical representation and stakeholder group. Each charting organization within ICANN is asked to undertake an exercise whereby they publish their diversity obligations on their website, for each level of employment including leadership either under their own charter or ICANN Bylaws. This should be followed by a diversity assessment of their existing structures and consequently used to formulate their diversity objectives/criteria and steps on how to achieve the same along with the timeline to do so. These diversity assessments should be conducted annually and at the very least, every 3 years. ICANN staff has been tasked with developing a mechanism for dealing with complaints arising out of diversity and related issues. Eventually, it is envisioned that ICANN will create a Diversity section on their website where an Annual Diversity Report will be published. All information regarding Diversity should also be published in their Annual Report.</p>
<p>The recommendations leave much upto the organization without establishing specific recruitment policies for equal opportunities. In their 7 parameters, race was left out as a criteria for diversity. The criteria of ‘diverse skills’ is also ambiguous; and within stakeholder group, it would have been more useful to highlight the priority for diversity of opinions within the same stakeholder group. So for example, to have two civil society organizations (CSOs) advocating for contrasting stances as opposed to having many CSO’s supporting one stance. However, these steps should be a good starting point to improve the diversity of an organization which in our earlier research we have found to be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder">neither global nor multistakeholder</a>. In fact, our <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis">recent diversity analysis </a>has shown concerns such as the vast number of the end users participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male. The mailing list where the majority of discussions take place are dominated by individuals from industry bodies. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders, especially geographically (14.7% participation from Asian countries), creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed. Moreover, when we have questioned ICANN’s existing diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship, they <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann">did not give us</a> the figures citing either lack of information or confidentiality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2. </b><b><span>HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION (HR-FOI)</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Framework of Interpretation was developed by the WS2 for ICANN Bylaws relating to Human Rights which clarified that Human Rights are not a Commitment for the organization but is a Core Value. The former being an obligation while the latter are <i>“<span>not necessarily intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s activities</span></i><span>”.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To summarize the FOI, if the applicable law i.e. the law practiced in the jurisdiction where ICANN is operating, does not mandate certain human rights then they do not raise issues under the core value. As such, there can be no enforcement of human rights obligations by ICANN or any other party against any other party. Thus, contingent on the seat of the operations the law can vary though by in large ICANN recognizes and can be guided by significant internationally respected human rights such as those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights was recognized as useful in the process of applying the core value in operations since it discusses corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Building on this, Human Right Impact Assessments (HRIA) with respect to ICANN policy development processes are currently being formulated by the Cross Community Working Group on Human Rights. Complementing this, ICANN is also undertaking an internal HRIA of the organization’s operations. It is important to remember that the international human rights instruments that are relevant here are those required by the applicable law.</p>
<p>Apart from its legal responsibility to uphold the HR laws of an area, the framework is worded negatively in that it says ICANN should in general avoid violating human rights. It is also said that they should take into account HR when making policies but these fall short from saying that HR considerations should be given prominent weightage and since there are many core values, at any point one of the others can be used to sidestep human rights. One core value in particular says that ICANN should duly consider the public policy advice of governments and other authorities when arriving at a decision. Thus, if governments want to promote a decision to further national interests at the expense of citizen’s human rights then that would be very much possible within this FOI.</p>
<p><b>3. </b><b><span>JURISDICTION</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>A highly contentious issue in WS2 was that of Jurisdiction, and the recommendations formed to tackle it were quite disappointing. Despite initial discussion by the group on ICANN’s location, they did not address the elephant in the room in their report. Even after the transition, ICANN’s new by-laws state that it is subject to California Law since it was incorporated there. This is partly the fault of the first Workstream because when enumerating the issues for WS2 with respect to jurisdiction, they left it ambiguous by stating: :</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>“At this point in the CCWG Accountability’s work, the main issues that need within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN ́s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, <b><span>but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated.”</span></b></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jurisdiction can often play a significant role in the laws that ICANN will have to abide by in terms of financial reporting, consumer protection, competition and labour laws, legal challenges to ICANN’s actions and finally, in resolving contractual disputes. In its present state, the operations of ICANN could, if such a situation arises, see interference from US authorities by way of legislature, tribunals, enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has, in the past, discussed the concept of “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann">jurisdictional resilience”</a>, which calls for:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li>Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated.</li>
<li>Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions</li>
<li>Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proposing to change ICANN’s seat of headquarters or at the very least, suggest ways for ICANN to gain partial immunity for its policy development processes under the US law would have gone a long way in making ICANN truly a global body. It would have also ensured that as an organization, ICANN would have been equally accountable to all its stakeholders as opposed to now, where by virtue of its incorporation, it has higher legal and possible political, obligations to the United States. This was (initially?) expressed by Brazil who dissented from the majority conclusions of the sub-group and drafted their own minority report, which was supported by countries like Russia. They were unhappy that all countries are still not at an equal footing in the participation of management of Internet resources, which goes against the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder system approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendations:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recommendations passed were in two categories:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">OFAC is an office of the US Treasury administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on the American foreign policy and national security objectives. It is pertinent because, for ICANN to enter into a Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) with an applicant from a sanctioned country, it will need an OFAC license. What happens right now is that ICANN is under no obligation to request for this license and in either case, OFAC can refuse to provide it. The sub group recommended that the terms of the RAA be modified so that ICANN is required to apply for and put their best efforts in securing the license if the applicant is qualified to be a registrar and not individually subject to sanctions. While the licensing process is underway they should also be helpful and transparent, and maintain on-going communication with the applicant. The same recommendation was made for applicants to the new gTLD program, from sanctioned countries. Other general licenses are needed from OFAC for certain ICANN transactions and hence it was proposed that ICANN pursue the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Choice of law and Choice of Venue Provisions in ICANN Agreements</p>
<p>In ICANN’S Registry Agreements (RA) and Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) the absence of a choice of law provision means that the governing law of these contracts is undetermined until later decided by a judge or arbitrator or an agreement between the parties. It was collectively seen that increased freedom of choice for the parties in the agreement could help in customizing the agreements and make it easier for registries and such to contractually engage with ICANN. Out of various options, the group decided that a Menu approach would be best whereby a host of options(decided by ICANN) can be provided and the party in case choose the most appropriate from them such as the jurisdiction of their incorporation.In RAs, the choice of venue was pre determined as Los Angeles, California but the group recommended that instead of imposing this choice on the party it would be better to offer a list of possible venues for arbitration. The registry can then choose amongst these options when entering into the contract. There were other issues discussed which did not reach fruition due to lack of unanimity such as discussions on immunity of ICANN from US jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>4. </b><b><span>OFFICE OF THE OMBUDS</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Subsequent to the external evaluation of the ICANN Office of the Ombuds (IOO), there were a couple of recommendations to strengthen the office. They were divided into procedural aspects that the office should carry out to improve their complaint mechanism such as differentiating between categories of complaints and explaining how each type would be handled with. The issues that would not invoke actions from the IOO should also be established clearly and if and where these could be transferred to any other channel. The response from all the relevant parties of ICANN to a formal request or report from the IOO should take place within 90 days, and 120 at the maximum if an explanation for the same can be provided. An internal timeline will be defined by the office for handling of complaints and document a report on these every quarter or annually. A recommendation for the IOO to be formally trained in mediation and have such experience within its ranks was further given. Reiterating the importance of diversity, even this sub group emphasized on the IOO bearing a diverse group in terms of gender and other parameters. This ensures that a complainant has a choice in who to approach in the office making them more comfortable. To enhance the independence of the Ombuds, their employment contract should have a 5 year fixed term which only allows for one extension of maximum 3 years. An Ombuds Advisory Panel is to be constituted by ICANN comprising five members to act as advisers, supporters and counsel for the IOO with at least 2 members having Ombudsman experience and the remaining possessing extensive ICANN experience. They would be responsible for selecting the new Ombuds and conducting the IOO’s evaluation every 5 years amongst others. Lastly, the IOO should proactively document their work by publishing reports on activity, collecting and publicizing statistics, user satisfaction information a well any improvements to the process.</p>
<p>These proposals still do not address the opacity of how the Office of the Ombuds resolve these cases since it does not call for; a) a compilation of all the cases that have been decided by the office in the history of the organization b) the details of the parties that are involved if the parties have allowed that to be revealed and if not at the very least, the non sensitive data such as their nationality and stakeholder affiliation and c) a description of the proceedings of the case and who won in each of them. When CIS <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1">asked</a> for the above in 2015, the information was denied on ground of confidentiality. Yet, it is vital to know these details since the Ombuds hear complaints against the Board, Staff and other constituent bodies and by not reporting on this, ICANN is rendering the process much less accountable and transparent. This conflict resolution process and its efficacy is even more essential in a multi-stakeholder environment so as to give parties the faith to engage in the process, knowing that the redressal mechanisms are strong. It is also problematic that sexual harassments complaints are dealt by the Ombuds and that ICANN does not have a specific Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee. The committee should be neutral and approachable and while it is useful for the Office of the Ombuds to be trained in sexual harassment cases, it is by no means a comprehensive and ideal approach to deal with complaints of this nature. Despite ICANN facing a sexual harassment claim i<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-sexual-harrasment-at-icann55">n 2016</a>, the recommendations do not specifically address the approach the Ombuds should take in tackling sexual harassment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>5. </b><b><span>SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION/ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub group presented the outcomes under the main heads of Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Outreach and Updates to policies and procedures. They suggested these as good practices that can be followed by the organizations and did not recommend that implementation of the same be required. The accountability aspect had suggestions of better documentation of procedures and decision-making. Proposals of listing members of such organizations publicly, making their meetings open to public observation including minutes and transcripts along with disclosing their correspondence with ICANN were aimed at making these entities more transparent. In the same vein, rules of membership and eligibility criteria, the process of application and a process of appeal should be well defined. Newsletters should be published by the SO/AC to help non-members understand the benefit and the process of becoming a member. Policies were asked to be reviewed at regular intervals and these internal reviews should not extend beyond a year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>6. </b><b><span>STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Improving the ICANN staff’s Accountability was the job of a different group who assessed it at the service delivery, departmental or organizational level not at an individual or personnel level. They did this by analysing the roles and responsibilities of the Board, staff and community members and the nexus between them. Their observations culminated in the understanding that ICANN needs to take steps such as make visible their performance management system and process, their vision for the departmental goals and how they tie in to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. They note that several new mechanisms have already been established yet have not been used enough to ascertain their efficacy and thus, propose a regular information acquisition mechanism. Most importantly, they have asked ICANN to standardize and publish guidelines for suitable timeframes for acknowledging and responding to requests from the community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>7. </b><b><span>ICANN TRANSPARENCY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last group of the WS2 was one specifically looking at the transparency of the organization.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>a. <span>The Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently the DIDP process only applies to ICANN’s “operational activities”, it was recommended to delete this caveat to cover a wider breadth of the organization’s activities. As CIS has experienced, request for information is often met with an answer that such information is not documented and to remedy the same, a documentation policy was proposed where if significant elements of a decision making process are taking place orally then the participants will be required to document the substance of the conversation. Many a times DIDP requests are refused because one aspect of the information sought is subject to confidentiality. hus one of the changes is to introduce a severability clause so that in such cases, information can still be disclosed with the sensitive aspect redacted or severed. In scenarios of redaction, the rationale should be provided citing one of the given DIDP exceptions along with the process for appeal. ICANN’s contracts should be under the purview of the DIDP except when subject to a non-disclosure agreement and further, the burden is on the other party to convince ICANN that it has a legitimate commercial reason for requested the NDA. No longer would any information pertaining to the security and stability of the Internet be outside the ambit of the DIDP but only if it is harmful to the security and stability. Finally, ICANN should review the DIDP every five years to see how it can be improved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>b. <span>Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with the Government</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a prominent step towards being more transparent with their expenditure and lobbying, the group recommended that ICANN begins disclosing publicly on at least an annual basis, sums of $20,000 per year devoted to “political activities” both in the US and abroad. All expenditures should be done on an itemized basis by ICANN for both outside contractors and internal personnel along with the identities of the persons engaging in such activities and the type of engagement used for such activities amongst others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>cc. <span>Transparency of Board Deliberations</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>The bylaws were recommended to be revised so that material may be removed from the minutes of the Board if subject to a DIDP exception. The exception for deliberative processes should not apply to any factual information, technical report or reports on the performance or effectiveness of a particular body or strategy. When any information is removed from the minutes of the Board meeting, they should be disclosed after a particular period of time as and when the window of harm has passed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>d. <span>ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistle-blower Protection)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To begin with, ICANN was recommended to devise a way such that when anyone searches their website for the term “whistle-blower”, it should redirect to their Hotline policy since people are unlikely to be aware that in ICANN parlance it is referred to as the Hotline policy. Instead of only “serious crimes” that are currently reported, all issues and concerns that violate local laws should be. Complaints should not be classified as ‘urgent’ and ‘non-urgent’ but all reports should be a priority and receive a formal acknowledgment within 48 hours at the maximum. ICANN should make it clear that any retaliation against the reporter will be taken and investigated as seriously as the original alleged wrongdoing. Employees should be provided with data about the use of the Hotline, including the types of incidents reported. Few member of this group came out with a Minority Statement expressing their disapproval with one particular aspect of the recommendations that they felt was not developed enough, the one pertaining to ICANN’s attorney-client privilege. The recommendation did not delve into specifics but merely stated that ICANN should expand transparency in their legal processes including clarifying how attorney-client privilege is invoked. The dissidents thought ICANN should go farther and enumerate principles where the privilege would be waived in the interests of transparency and account for voluntary disclosure as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The transparency recommendations did not focus on the financial reporting aspects of ICANN which <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-icann-financials-from-2012-2016">we have found ambiguities</a> with before. Some examples are; the Registries and Registrars are the main sources of revenue though there is ambiguity as to the classifications provided by ICANN such as the difference between RYG and RYN. The mode of contribution of sponsors isn’t clear either so we do not know if this was done through travel, money, media partnerships etc. Several entities have been listed from different places in different years, sometimes depending on the role they have played such as whether they are a sponsor or registry. Moreover, the Regional Internet Registries are clubbed under one heading and as a consequence it is not possible to determine individual RIR contribution like how much did APNIC pay for the Asia and Pacific region. Thus, there is a lot more scope for ICANN to be transparent which goes beyond the proposals in the report.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is worth noting that whereas the mandate of the WS1 included the implementation of the recommendations, this is not the case for WS2 and thus, by creating a report itself the mission of the group is concluded. This difference can be attributed to the fact that during the first WS, there was a need to see it through since the IANA transition would not happen otherwise. The change in circumstances and the corresponding lack of urgency render the process less powerful, the second time round. The final recommendations are now being discussed in the relevant charting organizations within ICANN such as the Government Advisory Council (GAC) and subsequent to their approval,, it will be sent to the Board who will decide to adopt them or not. If adopted, ICANN and its sub organizations will have to see how they can implement these recommendations. The co-chairs of the group will be the point of reference for the chartering organizations and an implementation oversight team has been formed, consisting of the Rapporteurs of the sub teams and the co-chairs. A Feasibility Assessment Report will be made public in due time which will describe the resources that would take to implement the recommendations. Since it would be a huge undertaking for ICANN to implement the above, the compliance process is expected to take a few years. .</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>The link to report can be found<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home?preview=/59640761/88575033/FULL%20WS2%20REPORT%20WITH%20ANNEXES.pdf"> here.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNInternet GovernanceAccountability2018-11-23T14:56:20ZBlog EntryDIDP #32 On ICANN's Fellowship Program
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program
<b>In furtherance of its capacity building functions, ICANN selects Fellows for every public meeting. These are individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities who are trained to become active participants in the ICANN community.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These fellows are assigned a mentor and receive training on ICANN's various areas of engagement. They are also given travel assistance to attend the meeting. While the process and selection criteria is detailed on their website, CIS had some questions as to the execution of these.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Our DIDP questioned the following aspects:</p>
<ol>
<li>Has any individual received the ICANN Fellowship more than the stated maximum limit of 3 times?</li>
<li>If so, whose decision and what was the justification given for awarding it the 4th time and any other times after that?</li>
<li>What countries did any such individuals belong to?</li>
<li>How many times has the limit of 3 been breached while giving fellowships?</li>
<li>What recording mechanisms are being used to ensure that awarding of these fellowships is kept track of, stored and updated? Are these public or privately made available anywhere? </li></ol>
<div>You can <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/fellowship-didp">access the request here</a>.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNInternet Governance2018-11-12T15:58:30ZBlog EntryICANN response to DIDP #31 on diversity
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity
<b>This post summarizes the response of ICANN to our inquiry on the diversity of their employees.</b>
<p>The file can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-response">found here </a></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">In our <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann">31st DIDP request</a>, we had asked ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship. ICANN states that they are an equal opportunities employer and to ascertain the extent of people from different backgrounds in their ranks, we were hoping to be given the information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However the response provided to us did not shed any light on this because of two reasons; firstly, ICANN has this information solely for two countries namely USA and Singapore as legislation in these countries compels employers to record this information. In the US, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that any organization with 100 or more employees have to file an Employer Information Report wherein the employment data is categorized by race/ethnicity/, gender and job category. Whereas in Singapore, information on race is gathered from the employee to assess which Self-Help group fund an employee should contribute to under Singaporean law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, for the two countries, they refused to divulge information on the basis of their conditions of nondisclosure. The conditions pertinent here were:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Information provided by or to a government or international organization, or any form of recitation of such information, in the expectation that the information will be kept confidential and/or would or likely would materially prejudice ICANN's relationship with that party.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Personnel, medical, contractual, remuneration, and similar records relating to an individual's personal information, when the disclosure of such information would or likely would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, as well as proceedings of internal appeal mechanisms and investigations. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Drafts of all correspondence, reports, documents, agreements, contracts, emails, or any other forms of communication </li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><br />We had only enquired about the percentage of representation of employees at each level by their race or citizenship but this was deemed dangerous to disclose by ICANN. They did not volunteer anymore information such as an anonymized data set and hence we will now file a DIDP to ask them for the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Given the global and multi-stakeholder nature of the processes at ICANN, it is also of importance that their workforce represents true diversity as well. Their bylaws mandate diversity amongst its Board of Directors and some of its constituent bodies but there is no concrete proof of this being imbibed within their recruitment ICANN also did not think it was necessary to disclose our requested information in the benefit of public interest because it does not outweigh the harm that could be caused by the requested disclosure.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-response-to-didp-31-on-diversity</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti Bopanna and Akash SriramICANNInternet Governance2018-08-21T17:35:06ZBlog EntryIndia's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-student-law-journal-sunil-abraham-mukta-batra-geetha-hariharan-swaraj-barooah-and-akriti-bopanna-indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates
<b>India's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates", an article by Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti Bopanna, was recently published in the NLUD Student Law Journal, an annual peer-reviewed journal published by the National Law University, Delhi.</b>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is the leader that championed ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’. However, India holds seemingly conflicting views on the future of the Internet, and how it will be governed. India’s stance is evolving and is distinct from that of authoritarian states who do not care for equal footing and multi-stakeholderism.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Introduction</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite John Perry Barlow’s defiant and idealistic Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace1 in 1996, debates about governing the Internet have been alive since the late 1990s. The tug-of-war over its governance continues to bubble among states, businesses, techies, civil society and users. These stakeholders have wondered who should govern the Internet or parts of it: Should it be the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)? The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)? The offspring of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) - the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or Enhanced Cooperation (EC) under the UN? Underlying this debate has been the role and power of each stakeholder at the decision-making table.States in both the global North and South have taken various positions on this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whether all stakeholders ought to have an equal say in governing the unique structure of the Internet or do states have sovereign public policy authority? India has, in the past, subscribed to the latter view. For instance, at WSIS in 2003, through Arun Shourie, then India’s Minister for Information Technology, India supported the move ‘requesting the Secretary General to set up a Working Group to think through issues concerning Internet Governance,’ offering him ‘considerable experience in this regard... [and] contribute in whatever way the Secretary General deems appropriate’. The United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand have expressed their support for ‘equal footing multi-stakeholderism’ and Australia subscribes to the status quo.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s position has been much followed, discussed and criticised. In this article, we trace and summarise India’s participation in the IGF, UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’), ITU and the NETmundial conference (April 2014) as a representative sample of Internet governance fora. In these fora, India has been represented by one of three arms of its government: the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The DeitY was converted to a full-fledged ministry in 2016 known as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). DeitY and DoT were part of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) until 2016 when it was bifurcated into the Ministry of Communications and MeitY.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">DeitY used to be and DoT still is, within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) in India. Though India has been acknowledged globally for championing ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’ at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO), global civil society and other stakeholders have criticised India’s behaviour in Internet governance for reasons such as lack of continuity and coherence and for holding policy positions overlapping with those of authoritarian states.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We argue that even though confusion about the Indian position arises from a multiplicity of views held within the Indian government, India’s position, in totality, is distinct from those of authoritarian states. Since criticism of the Indian government became more strident in 2011, after India introduced a proposal at the UNGA for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP) comprising states as members, we will begin to trace India's position chronologically from that point onwards.</p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Download the paper published in NLUD Student Law Journal <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates/">here</a></li>
<li>For a timeline of the events described in the article <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/indias-position-on-multi-stakeholderism-vs-multilateralism">click here</a></li>
<li>Read the paper published by NLUD Student Law Journal <a class="external-link" href="https://nludslj.webs.com/archives">on their website</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-student-law-journal-sunil-abraham-mukta-batra-geetha-hariharan-swaraj-barooah-and-akriti-bopanna-indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-student-law-journal-sunil-abraham-mukta-batra-geetha-hariharan-swaraj-barooah-and-akriti-bopanna-indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates</a>
</p>
No publisherSunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti BopannaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet GovernancePrivacy2018-08-16T15:38:02ZBlog EntryDIDP #31 Diversity of employees at ICANN
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann
<b>We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the diversity of employees based on race and citizenship.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This data is being requested to verify ICANN’s claim of being an equal opportunities employer. ICANN’s employee handbook states that they “...provide equal opportunities and are committed to the principle of equality regardless of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, political opinion or affiliation, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability.” The data on the diversity of employees based on race and nationality of their employees will depict how much they have stuck to their commitment to delivering equal opportunities to personnel in ICANN and potential employees.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The request filed by CIS can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-request">accessed here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherAkash SriramFreedom of Speech and ExpressionICANNInternet Governance2018-08-21T09:26:48ZBlog EntryICANN Diversity Analysis
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis
<b>The by-laws of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) state that it is a non-profit public-benefit corporation which is responsible at the overall level, for the coordination of the “global internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet's unique identifier systems”. As key stakeholders of ICANN are spread across the world, much of the communication discussing the work of ICANN takes place over email. This analysis of the diversity of participation at the ICANN processes, through a study of their mailing lists, was undertaken by Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The by-laws of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) state that it is a non-profit public-benefit corporation which is responsible at the overall level, for the coordination of the “global internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet's unique identifier systems”.<a href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a>Previously, this was overseen by the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) under a US Government contract but in 2016, the oversight was handed over to ICANN, as a global multi-stakeholder body.<a href="#_ftn2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> Given the significance of the multistakeholder nature of ICANN, it is imperative that stakeholders continue to question and improve the inclusiveness of its processes. The current blog post seeks to focus on the diversity of participation at the ICANN process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As stakeholders are spread across the world, much of the communication discussing the work of ICANN takes place over email. Various [or X number of ] mailing lists inform members of ICANN activities and are used for discussions between them from policy advice to organizational building matters. Many of these lists are public and hence can be subscribed to by anyone and also can be viewed by non-members through the archives.</p>
<p>CIS analysed the five most active mailing lists amongst the working group mailing lists from January 2016 to May 2018, namely:</p>
<ol><li>Outreach & Engagement,</li>
<li>Technology,</li>
<li>At-Large Review 2015 - 2019,</li>
<li>IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability, and</li>
<li>Finance & Budget mailing lists.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We looked at the diversity among these active participants by focusing on their gender, stakeholder grouping and region. In order to arrive at the data, we referred to public records such as the Statement of Interests which members have to give to the Generic Names Supporting Organization(GNSO) Council if they want to participate in their working groups. We also used, where available, ICANN Wiki and the LinkedIn profiles of these participants. Given below are some of the observations we made subsequent to surveying the data. We acknowledge that there might be some inadvertent errors made in the categorization of these participants, but are of the opinion that our inference from the data would not be drastically affected by a few errors.</p>
<h4>The following findings were observed:</h4>
<ul>
<li>A total of 218 participants were present on the 5 mailing lists that were looked at.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Of these,, 92 were determined to be active participants (participants who had sent more than the median number of mails in their working group) out of which 75 were non-staff members. </li></ul>
<h4>Among the active non-staff participants:</h4>
<ul>
<li>Out of the 75 participants, <strong>56</strong> (<strong>74.7%</strong>) were male and <strong>19</strong> (<strong>25.3%</strong>) were female.<br /><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Gender.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Gender" /><br /><br /><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/StakeholderGroup.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Stakeholder Group" /></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><strong>57.3%</strong> were identified to be members of the industry and technological community and 1.3% were identified as government representatives. 8.0% were representatives from Academia, 25.3% represented civil society and the remaining 8.0% were from fields that were uncategorizable with respect to the above, but were related to law and consultancy.<br /><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Region.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Region" /></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Only 14.7% of the participants were from Asia while the majority belonged to Africa and then North America with 24% and 22.7% participation respectively</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Within Asia, we identified only one active participant from China.</li></ul>
<h3>Concerns</h3>
<ul>
<li>The vast number of the people participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male constituting three fourth of the participants.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The mailing list are dominated by individuals from industry.. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed.</li>
<li>Only 14.7% of the participants were from Asia, which is concerning since 48.7% of internet users worldwide belong to Asia.<a href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a></li>
<li>China which has the world’s largest population of internet users (700 million people)<a href="#_ftn2"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> had only one active participant on these mailing lists.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN being a global multistakeholder organization should ideally have the number of representatives from each region be proportionate to the number of internet users in that region. In addition to this, participation of women on these mailing lists need to increase to ensure that there is inclusive contribution in the functioning of the organization. We did not come across any indication of participation of individuals of non binary genders.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
<p><a href="#_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/icann</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-01-en</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNFeaturedHomepageInternet Governance2018-08-29T11:19:46ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #30 - Employee remuneration structure at ICANN
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann
<b>We have requested ICANN to disclose the employee pay structure at ICANN with specific enquiries about the payment across the institutional hierarchy, gender, and region.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We have requested ICANN to disclose information pertaining to the income of each employee based on the following grounds. We had hoped this information will increase ICANN's transparency regarding their remuneration policies however ths was not the case, they either referred to their earlier documents who do not have concrete information or stated that the relevant documents were not in their possession. Their response to the respective questions were:</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Average salary across designations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN responded by referring to their FY18 Remuneration Practices document which states, “ICANN uses a global compensation expert consulting firm to provide comprehensive benchmarking market data (currently Willis Towers Watson, Mercer and Radford). The market study is conducted before the salary review process. Estimates of potential compensation adjustments typically are made during the budgeting process based on current market data. The budget is then approved as part of ICANN’s overall budget planning process.”</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Average salary for female and male employees</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN responded by saying “ICANN org’s remuneration philosophy and practice is not based upon gender” which is why they said that they have “no documentary information in ICANN org’s possession, custody or control that is responsive to this request.” However, the exact average salaries of female and male employees was not provided nor any information that could that could give us an idea as to whether the remuneration of their employees was in accordance with the above claim.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Bonuses - frequency at which it is given and upon what basis</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN responded by referring to “Discretionary At-Risk Component” section in their FY18 Remuneration Practices document which states,”The amount of at-risk pay an individual can earn is based on a combination of both the achievement of goals as well as the behaviors exhibited in achieving those goals… The Board has approved a framework whereby those with ICANN Org are eligible to earn an at-risk payment of up to 20 percent of base compensation as at-risk payment based on role and level in the organization, with certain senior executives eligible for up to 30 percent.” The duration over which the employees are eligible to receive an “at-risk” payment was given to be “twice a year".</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Average salary across regions for the same region</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN responded by saying,”compensation may vary across the regions based on currency differences, the availability of positions in a given region, market conditions, as well as the type of positions that are available in a given region. “ They also added that they have no documentary information in their possession, custody or control that is responsive to this request.</p>
<hr />
<p>The request filed by Paul Kurian may be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/didp-request-30">found here</a>. ICANN's response can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/icann-response-to-kurian">read here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-30-enquiry-about-the-employee-pay-structure-at-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherPaul Kurian and Akriti BopannaICANNInternet Governance2018-08-24T06:57:39ZBlog Entry