Page History

...

1. Is the Board willing to take into account the balance of all  stakeholders in ICANN? For example, prior to the last round of new gTLDs, the Board took steps to organise an ICANN key stakeholder meeting specifically to address new gTLDs with the GAC and other parties.
2. On the contrary, is the ICANN Board now a rubber-stamping body?
3. How does the Board plan to find a solution to deadlocks that get some topics to go in circles ad-infinitum? Or is it not for the Board to find a solution? After all, Board members have fiduciary duty.

From Jonathan Zuck:

Recent board communication seems to imply that ICANN Compliance shouldn't be engaged in enforcing elements of a registry agreement that fall outside of ICANN's remit. While we understand that existing gTLDs are "grandfathered," it seems as though we are at an impasse if we are to have a mechanism for enforceable commitments to be made. For example, PICs were suggested as the means of making commitments to the community on behalf of PIR on a number of issues that might be considered outside ICANN's remit. What does the board believe to be the best means for applicants to a new round (or changes to existing PICs) to make commitments that have teeth. Another issue that came up, related to PICs, has to do with the PICDRP, in which you need to be the injured party to initiate a proceeding. Is there a practical way for the ALAC to be given standing to bring a PICDRP (or now RVCDRP?) on behalf of "individual users" generally, if we find that their interests are threatened?