Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 3

In this series, I examine past behavior at ICANN, contrasting it with the Expected Standards of Behavior (ESOB), and ask you to decide for yourself whether it has been applied equally to everyone, or instead is applied selectively to achieve different results when different people are involved.

Gregory S. Shatan is an attorney at Moses & Singer LLP. He claims that the ESOB are “bedrock principles of ICANN participation” and does his “best to abide by them”. Continue reading “Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 3”

Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 2

In this series, I examine past behavior at ICANN, contrasting it with the  Expected Standards of Behavior (ESOB), and ask you to decide for yourself whether it has been applied equally to everyone, or instead is applied selectively to achieve different results when different people are involved.

Recall that ICANN General Counsel John Jeffrey has claimed that there is “zero tolerance” for conduct in violation of the ESOB. The preamble to the ESOB makes it clear that it should apply to ICANN staff.

Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process, including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils, undertake to:

Fadi Chehade, in his position as CEO of ICANN at the time, disrespected a segment of domain name registrants in 2015, accusing them of “hogging” domain names, and equating them to cybersquatters.

Continue reading “Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 2”

Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 1

In a prior blog post, I documented how the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior (ESOB) document is merely an aspirational statement, and not binding. As the ICANN Ombudsman Herb Waye has stated “it’s not a rule with sanction or penalty to it.”

However, let’s pretend for a moment that it is binding. Has it been applied consistently and equally?

Continue reading “Double Standards in the Application of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior – Part 1”

Update: My participation rights have now been eliminated at ICANN working groups

Just to followup on the earlier blog post of today, I received the following email from Keith Drazek (GNSO Council Chair),

Dear Mr. Kirikos,

Receipt of your letter is acknowledged.

We note and regret that you have elected to not accept and agree to abide by ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior (ESOB).

As such, per the notice provided in the Council Leadership Team’s letter of 29 March, you will be placed in observer status in the RPM PDP WG and any other GNSO-related forum until such time we receive the necessary communication confirming acceptance of the ESOB, or until such time the ICANN Ombuds rules that you may return to member status following any appeal.

Sincerely,

Keith Drazek
GNSO Chair (on behalf of the GNSO Council Leadership Team)

So, unless I “bend the knee” and “swear an oath of fealty” (or unless the ICANN Ombudsman says I can return), I’m forever banished. Is that reasonable and proportionate?

And, this affects participation for all working groups (not just the RPM PDP), even though there’s no issue in the IGO PDP!