27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 376:
Line 376: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→CEO Fadi Chehadé
At [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, a 3 year plan, entitled "ICANN's New Approach to Africa", was unveiled and presented to the community for comment. The plan was created through a working group convened at the previous ICANN meeting, which involved input from much of the African delegation, [[AFRINIC]], and other important contacts knowledgeable about the region.<ref>[http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/initiative-unveiled-to-increase-icann-s-presence-in-africa/129281/ Initiative Unveiled to Increase ICANNs Presence in Africa, ThisDayLive.com] Published 1 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Jan 2013</ref>
At [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, a 3 year plan, entitled "ICANN's New Approach to Africa", was unveiled and presented to the community for comment. The plan was created through a working group convened at the previous ICANN meeting, which involved input from much of the African delegation, [[AFRINIC]], and other important contacts knowledgeable about the region.<ref>[http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/initiative-unveiled-to-increase-icann-s-presence-in-africa/129281/ Initiative Unveiled to Increase ICANNs Presence in Africa, ThisDayLive.com] Published 1 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Jan 2013</ref>
==Implementation vs. Policy Development==
While a longstanding issue within the ICANN community, the difference and use of implementation procedures and policy development began to come to a noticeable head throughout 2012 and into 2013. Strictly speaking, anything that is "ICANN Policy" needs to go through its various [[SO|supporting organizations]] and be approved, while implementation refers to matters adopted by the [[ICANN Board]] regardless of any consultation to the rest of the community. ICANN is largely supposed to be drived by bottom-up, consensus policy development, and this often results in the organization making slow progress. Implementation procedures are necessary to accommodate the practical issues related to organizational effectiveness.<ref name="Race">[http://www.bna.com/race-toward-new-b17179871911/ Race Toward New, BNA.com]Published 17 Jan 2013, Retrieved 18 Jan</ref>
Issues that have recently sparked debates over implementation vs. policy development:
* Special protections were given to the [[IOC|Internaional Olympic Comittee]] and [[Red Cross]]/Red Crescent in 2012 with regards to their marks across all New gTLDs. This action was approved by the [[ICANN Board]] despite the fact that the [[GNSO]] was still debating the issue though still largely against the special protections.
* In 2012, the registry agreements for [[.com]] and [[.net]] were renewed without requirements for a "thick" [[Whois]], despite policy development that was working for such requirements.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10300-why-com-still-doesnt-have-a-thick-whois Why Com Still Doesnt Have Thick Whois, DomainIncite.com]Published Aug 31 2012, Retrieve 18 Jan 2013</ref>
* The current model of the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] and [[URSS|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] did not come from the policy that was drafted on trademark issues but rather special groups, including the [[IRT|Implementation Review Team]].
* Further trademark issues appear to be forthcoming via implementation and no policy development after closed-door meetings in late 2012 with business and IP interests within the community.<ref name="Race"></ref>
In January, 2013, ICANN Staff offered a draft report on the issue, [http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfbsxgsAwHFi.pdf found here in pdf format].
The topic is scheduled to be discussed further at the next ICANN Meeting, [[ICANN 46]] in Beijing.
=References=
=References=