Changes

ICANN has mechanisms in place for any individual or entity to solicit a reappraisal of any board decision that affects them. The [[Board Governance Committee]] is in charge of reviewing all reconsideration requests, which are submitted electronically and must be responded to within 30 days. The boards actions are also reviewed by an [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the [[ICANN Bylaws|bylaws]] and actions taken by the board, and recommend that the board readdress certain issues. Furthermore, ICANN's structure and operations, including every supporting organization and committee, is also subject to occasional reviews.<ref name="bylaws"></ref>

ICANN has mechanisms in place for any individual or entity to solicit a reappraisal of any board decision that affects them. The [[Board Governance Committee]] is in charge of reviewing all reconsideration requests, which are submitted electronically and must be responded to within 30 days. The boards actions are also reviewed by an [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], which has the power to call attention to discrepancies between the [[ICANN Bylaws|bylaws]] and actions taken by the board, and recommend that the board readdress certain issues. Furthermore, ICANN's structure and operations, including every supporting organization and committee, is also subject to occasional reviews.<ref name="bylaws"></ref>

 

==Conflicts of Interest==

===Conflicts of Interest===

ICANN has never had a clear conflicts on interest policy, or any regulations in place that would prevent its most important staff members and its  directors from moving directly into employment within the industry. This is an issue given the fact that these people of power influence the decisions and market-power of ICANN, and thus they could help create programs and policies that they could then go on to financially benefit from. This notably came to a head in 2011, when a prominent staffer and the Chairman of the Board left ICANN for employment in the industry. Both were involved in developing ICANN's new [[gTLD]] program, and both went on the be employed in new gTLD related ventures.<ref name="revolvingdoor">[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>

ICANN has never had a clear conflicts on interest policy, or any regulations in place that would prevent its most important staff members and its  directors from moving directly into employment within the industry. This is an issue given the fact that these people of power influence the decisions and market-power of ICANN, and thus they could help create programs and policies that they could then go on to financially benefit from. This notably came to a head in 2011, when a prominent staffer and the Chairman of the Board left ICANN for employment in the industry. Both were involved in developing ICANN's new [[gTLD]] program, and both went on the be employed in new gTLD related ventures.<ref name="revolvingdoor">[http://domainincite.com/calls-to-fix-new-gtld-revolving-door-at-icann/ Calls to Fix Revolving Door]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 June 26.</ref>

[[Angela Williams]] represented the concerns of the members of [[ICANN]]'s [[NPOC|Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency]] (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised budgetary, public confusion, and [[cybersquatting]] issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusion compromises Internet security. She also noted that it would be more expensive for not-for-profit organizations to protect their brand names/trademarks against fraud, [[cybersquatting]] and trademark infringement. She also pointed out that not-for-profit-organizations cannot afford the amount of money needed to become a domain name registry to ensure brand protection. Williams encouraged [[ICANN]] to consider the concerns of the members of the NPOC. She also recommended that verified not-for-profit organizations be allowed to exempt their trademarks from any new TLD applicant at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=56a49ede-865f-4bbe-9635-58d0b59add7b Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>

[[Angela Williams]] represented the concerns of the members of [[ICANN]]'s [[NPOC|Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency]] (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised budgetary, public confusion, and [[cybersquatting]] issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusion compromises Internet security. She also noted that it would be more expensive for not-for-profit organizations to protect their brand names/trademarks against fraud, [[cybersquatting]] and trademark infringement. She also pointed out that not-for-profit-organizations cannot afford the amount of money needed to become a domain name registry to ensure brand protection. Williams encouraged [[ICANN]] to consider the concerns of the members of the NPOC. She also recommended that verified not-for-profit organizations be allowed to exempt their trademarks from any new TLD applicant at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=56a49ede-865f-4bbe-9635-58d0b59add7b Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>

During the hearing, [[Dan Jaffe]] testified that the new gTLD program is "bad for consumers, marketers and the entire online marketplace" and enumerated different reasons why it is necessary to the stop its implementation. According to him, there is no substantial evidence that the new gTLD program will promote competition, relieve the scarcity of domain name space and support differentiated services and new products. He also cited that the new gTLD program has a serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]] to protect their trademarks or [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduced investments from intellectual property owners, and losses from failed TLDs. Jaffe supported his claims using the “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic TopLevel Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies,” a study commissioned by ICANN in December, 2010. In addition, he also emphasized that the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet its "bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development." Furthermore, he pointed out that the application fee is too expensive and harmful for brand owners and he also raised the concerns regarding the organization's conflict of interest policies after [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] decided to join [[Minds + Machines]] as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman  of ICANN. Thrush strongly advocated approval of the new gTLD program.<ref>

During the hearing, [[Dan Jaffe]] testified that the new gTLD program is "bad for consumers, marketers and the entire online marketplace" and enumerated different reasons why it is necessary to the stop its implementation. According to him, there is no substantial evidence that the new gTLD program will promote competition, relieve the scarcity of domain name space and support differentiated services and new products. He also cited that the new gTLD program has a serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]] to protect their trademarks or [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduced investments from intellectual property owners, and losses from failed TLDs. Jaffe supported his claims using the “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic TopLevel Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies,” a study commissioned by ICANN in December, 2010. In addition, he also emphasized that the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet its "bottom-up, consensus-driven approach to policy development." Furthermore, he pointed out that the application fee is too expensive and harmful for brand owners and he also raised the concerns regarding the organization's conflict of interest policies after [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] decided to join [[Minds + Machines]] as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman  of ICANN. Thrush strongly advocated approval of the new gTLD program.<ref>

[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8c7e6c3b-a6b8-41a9-b59a-681dd278249f Testimony of Daniel L. Jaffe, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>

[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8c7e6c3b-a6b8-41a9-b59a-681dd278249f Testimony of Daniel L. Jaffe, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>