Crocker Supports GAC-Related Proposal; Sepulveda Disputes IANA Contract’s ‘Existential’ Importance

ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker expressed support for ICANN’s proposal (http://bit.ly/1tlFgjg) to increase its board’s voting threshold requirement for rejection of the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), at the Technology Policy Institute conference in Aspen, Colorado, Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1pOEcVC). The proposal, which would require a two-thirds vote to reject GAC advice rather than the current simple majority, has been derided by some ICANN stakeholders (CD Aug 20 p3). Obama administration officials and Internet governance experts cautioned against assigning all Internet governance-related matters to ICANN. ICANN’s most critical task is developing its accountability process alongside the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), said Lawrence White, New York University economics professor.

The GAC-related proposal is “cementing ... what has already been good practice and good judgment” by the ICANN board, said Crocker. The board “very, very rarely” rejects GAC advice, he said, saying he couldn’t remember an instance when GAC advice was dismissed. The board takes GAC advice “quite seriously” and it would be “extremely poor judgment to have a narrow vote” related to its advice, Crocker said. “We have no objection” to the proposal. Proposals suggesting that the GAC have veto power over the board are a “non-starter,” he said. Such a move would “turn ICANN into a government-controlled organization,” he said. The GAC doesn’t participate in a “superior fashion,” but in a “collegial fashion,” along with other ICANN organizations, he said. The GAC acts in an advisory capacity to the ICANN board, but doesn’t have a vote (CD July 17 p15).

The expiring IANA contract with the Commerce Department is “incredibly important,” but isn’t as “existentially important” as some believe, said Daniel Sepulveda, deputy assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs. Legislation, such as the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act (CD May 23 p6), has been introduced to delay or, in other cases, to prohibit the IANA transition (CD June 23 p9; June 2 p8). The U.S. and the global community will “continue” to participate in ICANN’s multistakeholder model during and following the transition, said Sepulveda, saying the model needs to become “more inclusive.” Sepulveda expressed confidence in the upcoming ITU plenipotentiary and reaffirmed U.S. opposition to ITU proposals from the likes of China and Russia seeking to limit free speech online. The U.S. is working to achieve a “participatory democracy” for Internet governance, he said.

NYU’s White suggested an ICANN governance structure that would position domain registry, registrar and regional Internet registry operators on the ICANN board. Those parties will be the ones most affected by the well-being of the IANA functions, and would provide appropriate accountability to ICANN, he said. “Multistakeholder rhetoric” on ICANN accountability isn’t “nearly enough.” As for the role of governments within ICANN, the saying “less is more” is the correct approach, said White. ICANN is challenged by the number of tasks asked of it, which has included refereeing trade disputes for which it isn’t suited (CD July 1 p3), said Shane Tews, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy. ICANN isn’t designed to solve the “world’s problems,” she said. Domain “contract compliance” is the best place for ICANN to prove its accountability, she said.