Questions prepared by Tijani Ben Jemaa, Vice-Chair of AFRALO:
As a Board Director selected by At-Large,
- How would you support the At-Large community?
- What kind of support would you provide the RALOs and ALAC?
- Even if you are not obliged, will you report to ALAC?
- Will you meet with the ALAC and listen to the At-Large concerns and ideas? How often?
- Will you help to implement the At-Large projects and activities? How?
Alan Greenberg
The question of supporting the At-Large Community and the RALOs and ALSs is both easy and difficult. A Director is not on the Board to be an advocate FOR the groups that put him or her there. But presumably if selected by those groups, the Director understands the needs and desires of that group, and generally agrees and supports these needs. As such, an At-Large Director (including me if I am selected) is likely to be an advocate for specific initiatives coming out of At-Large. I think that one of the largest contributions that the Director can make is to ensure that the ALAC and RALO leadership understand the perspective with which the Board will approach its decisions. More likely, there will be multiple perspectives since the Board may well be divided on issues. Understanding these positions will allow At-Large to make stronger arguments for what it wants to see happen.
“Reporting back” is probably not the correct term for the interactions between the Director and ALAC. Certainly there will be regular interactions. I think that it is a given that schedules permitting, the Director would participate in some ALAC meetings both at ICANN meetings and teleconferences. Only experience will allow a reasonable prediction of the exact frequency. I am presuming that the Director will be on the standard ALAC and At-Large lists, and will therefore be able to monitor and intervene as appropriate. That has certainly been the case with some GNSO Directors in my experience. It would be foolish for the At-Large Director OR the ALAC to not ensure that there is a regular exchange of issues, and I do not consider either myself or the current ALAC foolish! There is a consideration that if a Director is too involved in the At-Large activities he or she could not participate in Board discussions and votes directly related to the AC.
I alluded to “helping to implement At-Large projects and activities” above. I do not think that it is the work of the Director to create such proposals, but it may be his or her job to act as an advisor on them. Being an author of a proposal going to the Board would certainly be viewed as a reason that the Director would have to recuse themselves from the Board discussion and vote, this is certainly not the way to go. Participation in At-Large activities is an option that will depend on the specific details.
The following questions were prepared by Hong Xue, Chair of APRALO, on behalf of APRALO.
1. You must have read ATRT Proposed Recommendations, which are now available for public comments. What are your comments on following two recommendations:
-Improve visibility among stakeholders of the work the Board undertakes in steering ICANN’s activities;
-Develop complementary mechanisms for consultation with SOs and ACs on policy issues that will be addressed at Board level.
If you agree with these recommendations, what would be your work plan to implement them?
Alan Greenberg
I wholeheartedly support the first item on improving visibility. I believe that the community needs to be aware of what the Board will be looking at, and to the extent possible and prudent, the community should have access to the materials that the Board will use in its deliberations – certainly FAR more than is available today. When one considers that there have been two Board meetings in the last months that were not even announced to the community ahead of time, we do have plenty of room to improve.
I think that I support the second issue, but am a bit mystified by the meaning of “complementary activities” (complementing to what?). That being said, I think that it is mandatory that the Board at least try to understand the wishes of the community prior to making decisions. The Board members are required to vote based on their own beliefs of the correct path for ICANN, but it is essential that they do this with the full knowledge of community views. I do recognize that it will be difficult to do this well. Typically there are reasonably long lead times for most ACs and SOs to come to a position where they can state what “the SO as a whole believes”. More often, there will be multiple statements from different parts of the group. It will vary based on the organization. The ALAC can probably come up with overall positions on may issues. The GNSO can really only come to closure after significant discussions between the stakeholder groups and constituencies and this can be a lengthy process.
I have no specific plan at this stage. As noted in the ATRT report, there are already a number of ongoing initiatives to increase visibility. For getting the input from the ACs and SOs, we will have to look at various options. The current comment process does not work well at all, and only a few of the formal ICANN bodies have been using it for input to the Board.
2.At-Large Community had expressed strong interest in supporting the Independent Objector mechanism defined in Final Guidebook, i.e. "acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet", particularly at Mexico At-Large Summit. What is your view on IO and at-large's involvement as the public-interest goalkeeper?
Alan Greenberg
I support the concept, but am a bit leery of the detailed implementation. Based on the most recent discussions, it is a way that the ALAC or GAC can raise objections without the costs that ICANN is planning to assess for objections through other paths. That I think is a good thing. I do have some worries that this “independent” voice will not be truly independent, but may consider things from a point of view of ICANN management, which is far from Independent. As such, I think that the oversight of the IO should be outside of ICANN staff and Board.
I do note that the comments that came out of the Summit were largely suggesting that the ALAC/At-Large itself could take on the role of the IO. I do not agree with that, as I do not think it is a volunteer job, nor do I think that we would have the skills and background that may be required for such a task.
3. ICANN's fast-track IDN ccTLDs program meets the pressing need of IDN communities but also introduces a couple of ad hoc solutions, such as character variants allocation and management. Do you believe new gTLD program should maintain these policies when evaluating IDN gTLDs for consistence or overrule them?
Alan Greenberg
As I understand it, the Board has already decided that during the first round, we will not delegate gTLDs which involve strings deemed to be confusingly similar (even if that is a desirable characteristic in the particular case) or TLDs which use variants. I do not see that this will be revisited for the first round unless there is a very loud outcry. I am neither an expert on this, nor have I studied the various positions in depth. I applauded the allowance of ad hoc solutions for the ccTLDs because I felt that the need was pressing (both real and from a public relations point of view). However, for the gTLD case where the number of possible TLDs is far greater and under less control, I support the current Board position. If there is a need that I am misunderstanding, I would be delighted to be educated!
4. Enhancement of involvement and participation of at-large community is essential for ICANN's next decade. Do you have a holistic plan to outreach user community? Would you support another at-large summit or make summit a regular channel for users' direct participation in ICANN activities?
Alan Greenberg
I agree that having credible input into the ICANN processes from the perspective of the user community is absolutely essential for ICANN. It is needed to ensure that we make the right decisions, and it is mandatory that we can demonstrate that we are factoring in these issues when we make decisions.
How this should be done remains somewhat elusive. There are those who believe that the current layered At-Large structure is doomed to failure. In fact, there are some who believe that it was deliberately created that way so it would not work. I do not accept that it was a deliberate conspiracy to yield failure, but I have voiced the opinion that perhaps some change in the structure might make it far more effective. I do not know what that change might be. I supported the idea that the overall structure should not be changed as a result of the recent ALAC review, but perhaps the next review would be a proper time.
The bottom line is that we MUST make At-Large work. With the current structure I agree that regional assemblies and summits are one component that has been shown to help. As such I support them and once I have a better understanding of the Board decision process, I would be happy to work with At-Large leaders to help them understand the kinds of arguments which might help such a proposal succeed.
The current discussion is to have one general assembly per region over the next 2-3 years, and then a summit during the following 3 years. So according to that schedule, the next summit might be in 3-6 years and the one after 10-12 years from now (presuming the same pattern). For an organization that is as relatively fluid as ICANN, to talk about what will happen 10 years out makes little sense, so the question of whether summits will be held regularly is not particularly helpful.
5. ICANN Board recently approved the policy regarding vertical integration in gTLD domains. Do you believe the new policy would enhance competition and benefit Internet users, including but not limited to registrants? Under the new policy, how would ICANN strengthen oversight over registries that acquire the opportunity to directly provide registration services?
Alan Greenberg
I don’t know how the new vertical integration policy will play out. I can see ways in which it could help registrants, but equally I can see some appalling possible outcomes which may or may not be fixable. I do not think that the policy will have a major impact on non-registrant users. ICANN has proposed rules on data sharing, but it is unclear how one could audit it when we are talking about the access to data that is wholly within a single company. Certainly compliance would have to be strengthened, but it is unclear if that alone is enough.
In general, I think that the decision is the right long-term one, but it is a decision that was taken prematurely because we do not have sufficient understanding of the new gTLD marketplace to have formulated the right rules.
6. Under the present policy, at-large director elected will replace ALAC Liaison on the Board. Do you think, despite the addition of at-large director, ALAC Liaison should be retained, through which at-large community's views could be streamlined to the Board?
Alan Greenberg
In a perfect world, with only one Director, I think that the Liaison should have been preserved, at the very least for some moderately long transition period. We do not live in a perfect world.
It remains to be seen exactly what the impact will be. Certainly without a person sitting there and reminding the Board of At-Large issues, we should demand that we get far better feedback on the advice that we do give. My experience being the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO is that for the majority of discussions and debates, I have not been acting under explicit orders but have participated based on my understanding of At-large beliefs coupled with my own. I suspect that this has been the case with Board Liaisons as well. If that is correct, then that responsibility is simply transferred to the new voting Director with no harm. The problems may occur when there ARE differences between the At-Large Director and an At-Large position, or at times when some other message must be relayed from the ALAC to the Board. Additionally, if a Director is TOO involved with the ALAC/At-Large, there may be a potential conflict when the Board discusses or votes on issues directly related to them. I suspect that there will not be a very large number of these times. If that is correct, the impact of losing the Liaison may not be that large. Only time will tell.
Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but question posed as an individual
As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.
My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on the Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to users. If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on broader issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an impressive background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the ICANN Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee?
If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words, would you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you formally and informally as a candidate?
Alan Greenberg
I completely agree that any leadership position within ALAC and at Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user. I am not at all sure that this excludes people who also have other interests or involvements in their lives. Most people find it necessary to work and this often means having some business involvement. It is also common, particularly in developing countries, that people wear many hats. Restricting someone from participating in At-Large because they also play other roles may unreasonably restrict the number of interested workers. That being said, it is up to each RALO and the ALAC to set the rules covering their organization. Some RALOs do have rules restricting some people (employees from ICANN contracted parties, for instance) from holding some offices.
The criteria for the At-Large Director explicitly includes such a restriction:
Independence from the ICANN stakeholders whose financial situation is significantly impacted by ICANN decisions.
For the record, I meet this criteria.
Regarding the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, perhaps I have not met your expectations, but I was the person who initiated this PDP and it has proceeded despite the regular claims by some in the domain industry that there is no case for it existing and there is no need for change.
On the Vertical Integration PDP, I took a position that would have severely restricted the ability of domain industry parties and rejected the proposals that they should be given free reign with minimal restrictions. I class that as just the opposite from “soft”.
At-Large leaders, presumably influenced by their constituencies, will make their decision based on my track record of working for At-Large and users. A review of my Statement of Interest, my Candidate Statement and the answers to these questions hopefully will suffice. But I am always willing to answer additional questions.
The following 8 questions were prepared by Avri Doria on behalf of EURALO:
1. To what extent do you think that the ALAC should be equivalent in its influence within ICANN to the GAC. Should the by-laws be changed to give the ALAC the same right of advice as the GAC has?
Alan Greenberg
There are two aspects to this question. a) What should the Bylaws say? b) What will the real impact be?
As we have seen recently, even with the Bylaws saying that the GAC has special status, the Board has not always acknowledged that or treated them in the prescribed way. That notwithstanding, the GAC will always have a special status regardless of the Bylaws, because there are members of the GAC who hold immense power, including, at the moment, control over the IANA contract and the ability to seriously hurt ICANN initiatives through government intervention or action. Those governments can act independently from the GAC, but to the extent that they choose to exercise some of their power to strengthen GAC actions, they in turn strengthen the GAC.
So my belief is that the two organizations will not be equal. But where we should be is quite far from the present situation. The Bylaws say the following regarding the Board<==>GAC relationship:
h. The Board shall notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee in a timely manner of any proposal raising public policy issues on which it or any of ICANN's supporting organizations or advisory committees seeks public comment, and shall take duly into account any timely response to that notification prior to taking action.
i. The Governmental Advisory Committee may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.
j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
k. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities.
The comparable section for the ALAC is:
a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.
We are doing a far better job of acting as a Board Advisory Committee now than we were even a year ago. But it is essential that we work to ensure that the focus and quality of our “advice” is of such a high quality that it will be obvious to Board members that we deserve more formal acknowledgement of this enshrined in the Bylaws.
2. How do you plan to balance your commitment to doing what you believe is best for ICANN as a California corporation with your role as a representative of the members of the At-Large? How do you propose handling it when your vote runs counter to the advice of the ALAC and At-Large.
Alan Greenberg
This question cannot be answered as it stands, because it is in error. The Bylaws explicitly state (bold emphasis mine):
Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the entity that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or constituencies.
A Board must balance many viewpoints and needs, and I would be surprised if there were not occasional situations where the interests of users are overpowered by some other more compelling need. That is why one has advocates of specific needs in the organization – they can each represent their position but ultimately, a decision must be made and not everyone will be happy.
If a situation arises where my vote is counter to the advice of ALAC and At-Large, I presume that there will likely have been discussions ahead of time that foresaw the possibility and there will almost certainly be some after the fact. All one can do in situations like this is be sufficiently honest and forthright.
3. What do you plan to do about the Culture of Secrecy that exists in ICANN. What role does the Board have to play in making ICANN more transparent and accountable?
Alan Greenberg
I am not sure it deserves such a important sounding name, but there is a pervasive feeling through much of the organization, staff, volunteers, and Board the “need to know” is the operative phrase.
I am a very firm believer that organizations take their signals from the top. In a traditional business those signals typically come from the CEO. I have seen large organizations (and an occasional country) change almost overnight based on the attitude of the leader. From a staff perspective, that is true for ICANN as well. For the volunteer part of the organization, the signals will come largely from the Board.
If the Board does not practice what it preaches about openness, no other part of ICANN will likely practice it either. So I believe the ATRT is correct in that an early focus must be on the Board.
As a single Board member, one does not have a lot of power, but if there are at least a few on the Board who recognize problems and call then out, I think that things may get better.
I have the advantage of having spent 4 years both in the ALAC and the GNSO, and so can recognize the problems from many perspectives (including how some of the GNSO Constituency/Stakeholder groups view the Board, and how others, including the ALAC, view them.
4. What degree of oversight do you think the Board should exert over the Staff and its activities.
Alan Greenberg
The Board does not (and should not) have any direct control over staff (other than the CEO) with the exception of in relation to the services and information provided directly to the Board.
That said, it is up to the Board to direct the CEO if changes are necessary. And the Board must be conscious of any attempt, consciously or not, to impact its decisions by the availability, quality or precision of the information it gets from staff.
There is always a real problem with the competing needs to compress the information the Board receives to a manageable volume, but not to filter or modify the important aspects of that information. Being conscious of the possibility is part of the solution.
5. Do you accept that ICANN remains a US based corporation or do you have a plan for increasing its International status.
Alan Greenberg
I do not see the formal status changing in the next few years, but would not object to some change if it made sense. That being said, I think that it is imperative that ICANN view itself as an international organization, and consider the obstacles to it being considered as such by stakeholders throughout the world. Where it is incorporated need not restrict how it acts with respect to most of its interactions.
6. Do you agree with the current salary levels of the senior managers in ICANN. Do you think the Board should change the levels of compensation to be more in keeping with the non-profit of ICANN. If so, how do you plan seeing this dealt with?
Alan Greenberg
I have periodically looked at the salaries of ICANN’s senior managers, and did so in preparing my answer to this question. I am not an expert on what salary levels are common in either Southern California or Brussels, so my impressions are not the best measure. Nevertheless, I find some of the salaries rather outlandish, and was surprised that others were as low as they are. If you were to compare salaries to other organizations, you would need to be careful to compare not only non-profit to non-profit, but more importantly what salary levels people with the skills we need can command elsewhere. There is no point in paying lower salaries if we cannot maintain the quality. However, I am well aware that there are certainly a number of cases where in the past, we have paid VERY high salaries and not received the expected level of quality. THAT we should not stand for.
7. What is your plan for any excess funds that may be derived from new gTLD auctions?
Alan Greenberg
I think that the term “plan” may be too strong, but I certainly have ideas. I can summarize them with three directives:
- Don’t merge the auction funds into general revenue.
- Do good things with it
- Since much of the revenue will likely be one-time-only and may not be repeated in later rounds, try to make it last
Within those constraints, I think that we should consider helping advance the Internet in developing countries (perhaps by subsidizing gTLD applications for some classes of applicants), advance the use of IDN, and a variety of education and fellowship opportunities. If the funds were sufficient, I would not object to allocating some to the operating reserve to get it to the desired level and not have it hanging over our heads forever.
8. Do you think it is necessary for ICANN to make serious adjustments to the new gTLD process and application fees in order for it to be possible for there to be applicants from the developing economies. what sort of changes would you be in favor of seeing?
Alan Greenberg
I have been one of the active members of the SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group which has met twice-weekly for the last several months. I support the recommendations of that report and will not repeat them here. The WG's Milestone Report can be found at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf.
The following 3 questions were prepared by Wolf Ludwig, Chair of EURALO, on behalf of EURALO:
1. Please present a precise definition of the "public interest".
Alan Greenberg
I do not believe you can find a precise and definitive definition. I find the introduction to the Wikipedia’s description of “Public Interest” useful:
The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest, or whether the concept itself is a coherent one.
In the context of ICANN, I think it perhaps refers to the interests of those who are not represented by those with a direct financial stake in ICANN matters. It can also be a reference to the state of the Internet as a whole, to the extent that we can put metrics on it - for instance, if there were a major Denial-of-Service problem, that would not be in the public interest.
2. What would you say is the relevance of the "public interest" in the ICANN context?
Alan Greenberg
I think my previous answer partially addressed this. ICANN is entrusted with overseeing the Internet Name and Number systems. This is a general resource not just to serve those who can lobby ICANN for what they want but for the rest of the world’s users as well. There used to be an old expression in the United States that goes:
What's good for General Motors is good for the country.
Perhaps it was once true in the US that what was good for big business was good for the nation, but it is certainly not true with respect to the Internet and the largest of the corporations that provide much of its infrastructure. ICANN is here to protect and enhance that infrastructure on behalf of everyone, not just the large contractors or businesses.
3. What is the relevance of the PI for the candidates and how best it could be pursued by them (once seated on the Board)?
Alan Greenberg
Given the lack of formal definition, and the likely varying perceptions of people, the only solution is to select someone who you believe (or hope) shares a common view with you and that they are then vigilant when the board is faced with decisions.
I strongly believe that one of the reasons that we needed At-Large to have voting privileges is to ensure that during the discussion and vote, there is always SOMEONE on the Board who is considering the impact on the user instead of just that on the various other stakeholders or the corporation itself. That is not to say that all other directors ignore these issues, but it is important to make sure that they are always represented.
Questions to specific candidates prepared by Adam Peake, EURALO ALAC member, on behalf of EURALO:
To be fair: Alan, are you involved with any potential/planned gTLD applications?
A general question, but first for Alan.
The ATRT's proposed recommendations include:
"ICANN should establish [by INSERT DATE] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance."
1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps?
2. Please describe your experience with the following, as relevant to ICANN's mission "public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution".
Alan Greenberg
Regarding involvement in potential or planned gTLD applications, I have no such involvement.
On what skills are missing from the Board, I really have no idea. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about most Board members to assess their various skills, nor is such analysis something that I would consider myself competent in.
What skills do I possess from that list? I have some moderate financial skills, but far from at a professional level; I have training decades ago in strategic planning; most it probably now out of date; I have some limited corporate governance experience; and I have good negotiation skills.
None of those are the reason that I feel I can contribute on the ICANN Board. My strengths are that I have the ability to assimilate unfamiliar and complex situations and make some sense out of them, identifying core problems and solutions. I am rational and analytical, and I have a very wide range of knowledge in many relevant areas that can be pulled together to help address issues and problems. I take the work seriously and am willing to devote sufficient time to doing the job well. I am passionate about both ICANN and ensuring that user-related issues are kept front-and-centre in discussions. I am moderately articulate (both writing and speaking) and at times have the ability to convince others. At the same time, my scientific background allows me to discard a position when it has been shown to be wrong.
As perhaps might be expected, I do not completely agree with the tone of the ATRT recommendation. All of those skills are needed, but a Board also need some really bright, committed people even if they are generalists.
For the record, I think that this is an excellent question and I am not sure why it was directed solely at me.
Question from Carlos, ALAC representative from LACRALO:
We heard skills and capacities of his own voices. But, and the direct question is: Why not the other two candidates? What are the weaknesses of the other two candidates?
Alan Greenberg
I do not feel that it is appropriate to approach this competition in such a manner. Those who have to vote, and their advisors, will have to judge the candidates and decide for themselves.
NARALO Questions for all Candidates:
1. How do you define "end-user," "consumer," "registrant," and where do those terms intersect?
Alan Greenberg
In the context of ICANN, I would say that an “end-user” is any person who uses the Internet.
A registrant is any person or entity that registers a domain name. Such names could be gTLDs which are registered under the auspices of ICANN, or those managed by other entities (ccTLDs, .edu, etc). For domains registered through privacy services, the service is technically the registrant, although it is common to talk about the originator of the request as a “registrant” as well.
“Consumer” is far more difficult to define in the context of ICANN. It might be someone who “buys” a domain name (although “buy” is a misnomer) – ie a registrant. Or it could be anyone who purchases any service with respect to Internet names and numbers which could include domain names, ISP services, web services, and so forth. Or it could be used for those who buy things over the Internet. Combinations of these could also fall under the general title of “consumer. And there are probably some other versions as well.
2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.
Alan Greenberg
I believe that ICANN has not done nearly as good a job as it could have and should have. It seems to have gotten somewhat better recently, but only driven by situations that can only be described as scandalous (for a start, registrar failure after early warnings ignored, lack of compliance actions in a number of areas, contracts which do not even allow for incremental penalties and therefore have not been enforced at all).
Notwithstanding the inadequate staff action, the ACs and SOs have not adequately addressed these issues either. Again, that has slowly started, but there is still a general lack of enthusiasm for putting time and energy into these areas. I can speak with some personal interest on this, as the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was initiated by the ALAC on my initiative, and I am now chairing the PDP WG which has been very poorly supported by both At-Large and the GNSO user constituencies.
3. Is the current speed of the new gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?
Alan Greenberg
I think that the current pace is probably about right. But that is a result of initially FAR underestimating the amount of preparatory work that was needed, with the resultant delays and need to address specific issues, each one working in crisis mode. Intellectual Property issues were arguably the worst – it required two consecutive crisis-mode interventions.
4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?
Alan Greenberg
The scope of ICANN is defined in its Articles of Incorporation (http://icann.org/en/general/articles.htm). Specifically:
In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall […] pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
That being said, there is the potential for a lot of discretion on just what “performing and overseeing” entails. Interpretations range from that of minimalists who say that if a function is not absolutely mandatory, then ICANN should not do it, to those that believe that virtually everything related to the Internet uses IP and DNS and is thus in ICANN’s purview.
I tend to come down somewhere in the middle. I believe that ICANN must not only do the bare minimum associated with the issues defined above, but has a responsibility to do it in a technically and socially responsible manner. So, for example, ICANN is not a law enforcement agency and has no power to pursue and punish someone who damages the operational characteristics of the Internet. But ICANN does have a responsibility to do things in such a way that considers the potential for wrong-doing and performs its duties so as to minimize (or perhaps just control) the vulnerability to such wrong-doing.
The limits of ICANN’s authority is a far more challenging question. ICANN has minimal authority to take action to enforce adherence to the standards and rules it creates. If a contract exists, it is potentially enforceable. ICANN has (almost) control over what is placed in the Root Servers. And implicit in this, ICANN has some ability to disconnect (logically, since ICANN has control of minimal physical infrastructure) parts of the Internet if doing otherwise would cause problems with the rest of the net. In most such cases, it is not really ICANN’s authority that allows this, but the desire of the major infrastructure providers (such as most of the Root Server operators) to adhere to ICANN standards or actions. Over and above that, ICANN’s “authority” comes from a desire by most of the world to enjoy a single, functioning Internet.
5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
Alan Greenberg
I would have great interest in the RAA. I believe that the original RAA was written in far too loose a manner. There are aspects that make its amendment very difficult and to date there has not been any effort to address this. As an example, the last negotiated change finally implemented in 2009 was very difficult to orchestrate because the agreement calls for GNSO approval of the changes, but does not allow for any GNSO involvement in establishing those changes, and the GNSO not surprisingly took a dim view of being asked to rubber-stamp the agreement.
Once this amendment was ultimately approved, it did not automatically come into force, but is being phased in over five years as contracts expire. Many registrars have adopted it early in exchange for a significant financial benefit, but for some, the registrants and ICANN compliance will not see the benefits for several more years.
The current Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP is trying to address a large number of items associated with the end-of-expiration processes, because the original RAA was silent on this and the last PDP in 2003 did not take sufficiently strong measures. In fairness to that group, following their work, registrars developed a number of innovative techniques to effectively bypass many of the new measures.
6. Describe, in as much detail as possible, your assessment of WHOIS, specifically stating your opinions on
- the desired balance between registrant privacy and registrant accountability
- the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose
- whether WHOIS needs to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched
Alan Greenberg
I think that “balance” is the key word here. Currently the WHOIS information is used for a variety of purposes, some legitimate, some not. As long as information is completely public, there is little that can be done to protect against improper use. Moreover, it is understood that partly because of the above problem (and for other reasons), a lot of the information within WHOIS is invalid.
Following an interminable and unsuccessful process to try to “fix” WHOIS, we are now in the midst of a study phase. There are a number of formal studies that are being undertaken under the auspices of the GNSO, and a Affirmation of Commitments Review Team is just starting.
I cannot say what the proper answer is, other than ultimately, we must address both privacy needs and the needs of law enforcement (and others) who are involved in the addressing the misuse of the Internet.. I would think that TELNIC solution of addressing natural persons (human beings) differently from legal persons (companies and other organizations) is at least a part of the solution. No doubt that technology and some level of privileged access will also play a large part.
Regarding the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose, the answer is mixed. It is used perhaps millions of times daily and it does address a need, although clearly sometimes the answers it yields are incorrect or misleading. But if it was completely satisfying the needs, we would not have spend a large part of the last decade trying to fix it. So the answer is mixed.
One area that is not currently addressed at all is the ability of WHOIS to accept multiple languages and scripts and allow that information to be retrieved in a meaningful way. The overall Internet is finally starting to address Unicode and IDN issues and WHOIS is lagging badly behind. Note that this does not just impact IDN domains, but any domain that is registered using some language/script other than English.
Does WHOIS need to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched? Well, certainly not untouched! I will leave it to a more detailed analysis to address how to change it once we figure out what we want to do.
I would suggest, only half jokingly, that perhaps we need to change the name. WHOIS has such a bad reputation at the moment that no matter what we do, if we keep the same name, it will be somewhat tarnished.
7. What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?
Alan Greenberg
I certainly plan to personally be as open with the At-Large community (and everyone) as rules, process and time commitments allow. Over that, a single Director cannot unilaterally change how things are done. However the atmosphere is primed for change in this area (due to the AoC, the ATRT, and general unrest over the perceived lack of transparency and accountability), so as a Director, I plan to continue to identify areas where I think improvements are needed and work towards remedies.
8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.
Alan Greenberg
I am not a lawyer, and certainly not one with specific knowledge of the law in the jurisdictions where ICANN operates. I am also not quite sure what the phrase “rights within ICANN” means. All of that being said, I suspect that end-users and registrants have few DIRECT rights within the ICANN processes, other than to lodge complaints if applicable.
Should there be such rights? As it is not a subject that I have looked into in depth, I really don’t know the pros and cons. I know that the concept of third party beneficiary rights in various contracts have been suggested, and some people, particularly those from my neighbours to the south (the United States), have been particularly vocal about this. At this time, I am open to trying to understand more regarding what the issues are and to what extent such a contractual arrangement could be added to our existing agreements.
There is, however, an alternative way to view this question. That is, do registrants and end-users have rights THROUGH At-Large. Although these are not necessarily rights that could be exercised in a court of law, they are real. As At-Large learns to be more effective, these rights will take on more value. This is directly related to EURALO Question 1 on the relationship between the ALAC and the Board. As ALAC and At-large become more credible as a representative of the world’s users, their ability to affect outcomes will increase. As a Board member, I would take great pride in this and do what I could to make sure the change is recognized by the Board and the rest of ICANN.
9. As you replace the accountable At-Large liaison to the Board in a role that is explicitly not accountable, describe the relationship you intend to have with ICANN's At-Large Community.
- Are you prepared to make any commitments to levels of engagement with At-Large?
- Are you willing to resign if incapable of meeting those comittments?
Alan Greenberg
The bulk of this question has already been addressed with respect to the AFRALO Question, the APRALO Questions 4 and 6 and EURALO Question 2 (and perhaps others).
Would I resign if I could not meet my commitments? I have a rather high standards regarding meeting my commitments. If I think that a breach is sufficiently severe that the proper remedy is to resign, I would certainly do so. I suspect that such a case would involve not being able to effectively function as a Director, and not just on the At-Large interactions.
10. How would you describe the "maturity" of ICANN's At-Large infrastructure?
- What is the effect of this on ICANN policy-making?
- What would you do to improve this?
Alan Greenberg
I judge the At-large infrastructure as far more “mature” than a year or two ago (it only partially came into existence about 4 years ago). But it is still not great. We now have functioning RALOs in all five regions and all are reasonably active. We have nearly 130 ALSs impressively covering the globe (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/maps/combined).
It is unclear how many of these are active, and how many really involve their members in ICANN matters. There are indications that some do not, and others do so in a very significant way. We still have policy-related input from a relatively small number of edge-level participants, and that somehow needs to be addressed. The problem is that a lot of ICANN work is rather esoteric from the point of view of those on the edge, and even when not, it takes a lot of time and effort to get up to speed on things.
I think that the way to address it is through a number of initiatives:
- Education and publication of “dumbed-down” literature explaining what we do
- Once available, encouraging ALSs to use it
- Mentoring to get people who are interested up to speed
- Consideration of ways in which the At-Large organization can be changed, perhaps minor and perhaps major, to make it more effective.
As I said in an earlier question, ICANN cannot afford to not have At-Large work. We MUST make it effective. Some of this will need to be supported at the Board level, but the majority needs to be done within At-Large.
11. What is your analysis of the recent Board decision regarding vertical integration, specifically from the point of view of Internet registrants and end-users?
Alan Greenberg
This was already addressed in APRALO Question 5.
12. All three candidates have, at least once, been appointed to their At-Large positions rather than chosen by the community. How does this impact your view of ICANN and its relationship with the public?
Alan Greenberg
I do not believe that it affects my views at all. In the past, it has definitely impacted how I am perceived by others. There were some rough times where NomCom appointees have been viewed very much as second-class citizens within the ALAC and within the GNSO – that those who represent REAL organizations have far more credibility and import. However, In my case at least, I believe that my actions, words and track record has convinced people that I can contribute and represent the needs of users at least as well as those appointed by RALOs.
13. What is the best possible outcome of this election process? What is the worst possible outcome?
Alan Greenberg
The best possible outcome would be that At-Large put onto the Board someone who:
- quickly earns the respect of the other Board members and of the rest of ICANN;
- is recognized as someone who should be listened to within Board discussions, not because the others will all agree with what is said, but because the person is judged as being thoughtful and having insight;
- builds rapport and alliances with other Board members, since it is through such groupings that it is possible to move the Board in directions it might not otherwise go;
- within some reasonable time, starts to get increasing responsibility within the Board and Board committees;
- develops good ongoing relationships with At-Large leaders;
- in summary convinces the community and particularly the rest of the Board that it was a good idea to create this new voting Board position and that it adds value to the Board in particular and to ICANN as a whole.
The worst possible outcome is pretty much the opposite:
- the rest of the Board is not particularly impressed with the new Director, or worse finds things they do not like
- as a result, the new Director tends to be ignored
- there is a view within the Board that the new Director does not really add a lot to Board, which translates to a feeling that the change was not warranted.
- the person proves ineffective in impacting Board directions.
14. Do you consider yourself a "people person"? In other words, do you like people and do you make yourself available because you enjoy spending time listening to people's ideas and concerns?
Alan Greenberg
I tend to have a hard time in situations where I am not known or at all integrated. Just approaching someone and striking up a conversation is not my strength. I tend to have no such problems if I am the one approached. Once I am involved in a conversation or in environments where I feel more comfortable, I change into very much of a people-person.
15. How many hours of a time commitment per week do you expect will be needed of you as an ICANN Board of Director? Can you dedicate more than that?
Alan Greenberg
The estimates seem to be about 20-24 hours per week. That is less than I typically put into ICANN now. As I am semi-retired and have full control over my other commitments, I will structure them to make sure that ICANN is not neglected.
16. Are you a founder, officer, leader or executive management of an organization planning to submit a new TLD application to ICANN? And if so, how does that affect your ability to represent end-users at the Board?
Alan Greenberg
As answered to the EURALO question from Adam Peake, I have no such connections and I am not connected with any new gTLD initiative in a paid or unpaid capacity.
Questions from Danny Younger
1. Question for the Candidates: The Root Scaling Study Team wrote: "Beyond the very near term, we can’t know in advance exactly how many TLDs can be added to the root, or how fast they can be added, because as soon as you start to add entries to the root each of the root system components adapts and changes in ways that cannot be predicted or effectively coordinated. That’s why it’s so important to build an “early warning system” that can (a) detect signs that one or more of the root system actors is reaching its limit for absorbing changes without major replanning, and (b) take effective mitigating action when those signs are detected."
As an ICANN director, would you approve the launch of new gTLDs prior to having this "early warning system" built?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
Alan Greenberg
Although it is quite possible that the launch of the process will be approved prior to the At-Large Director being on the Board, I would approve the launch. However, I would consider it mandatory to start looking at possible tools or combinations of tools to create such an “early warning system”. Moreover, I would advocate that the details of the solicitation for applications does not commit ICANN to inserting successful TLD in the root unless and until the technical infrastructure to do it prudently is available.
2. Question for the Candidates: The IGF process effectively uses "remote hubs" for participation. These hubs are the focal point of local discourse and workshops. While some remote hubs were established on an ad-hoc basis for the ICANN Nairobi meeting (in Bangladesh, Virginia & San Francisco), there has been no institutional support to encourage and develop a sustainable approach to further such efforts. As activities within ALAC's remit include "Establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO's Region", will you, as a Board director, see to it that a program is established by the ALAC to support an ongoing regional "remote hub" outreach strategy?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
Alan Greenberg
I would support such a system, but I am not at all sure that it should be limited to At-Large. ICANN has a great need to be represented throughout the world with regard to many of its facilities and if such a regional hub is warranted for At-Large, there may be other applications as well.
To the extent that this is limited to At-Large, the initiative should really come FROM At-large and not top-down from the Board.
3. Question for the Candidates: The ICANN Board's decision with respect to Vertical Integration has the potential to negatively impact the registrant community. Registrants "may be harmed by an integrated registry/registrar operation’s ability to identify high value domains, hold those domains off the market (either directly or through affiliates) and to then monetize them at a premium price. These practices render the domain name unavailable to the “first-come” registrant or force that registrant to pay a higher price than the standard retail offer." What action will you take as a board director to monitor the domain name marketplace so as to ensure that registrants aren't abused by domain name scalping?
Thanks,
Danny Younger
Alan Greenberg
Please see my reply to APRALO Question 5. I believe that whole-heartedly embracing Vertical Integration was premature and your scenarios are just one set of examples of possible harms. As a Director, I would want to be informed about how ICANN would be monitoring a whole host of such scenarios and what actions will be taken if they occur (I think the entire community should be aware of how it is being handled, not just the Board). The proposed Registry Contract does include VI issues as being eligible for Consensus Policy, be we all know that the PDP as now implemented is a lengthy one. So I would push for expedited processes as well (there is currently some discussion of these in the PDP Work Team).
