ICANN Accountability Process Mandatory for IANA Transition, Says NTIA’s Strickling
NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling maintained the need for ICANN to complete its accountability process before the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), at a Media Institute event Monday (http://1.usa.gov/1vq15Ry). Some ICANN stakeholders said the scope of the accountability process shouldn’t be limited to IANA issues, in comments due Saturday (http://bit.ly/1ncHROw).
Many of the comments responded to a letter from ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade and board Chairman Steve Crocker (CD Sept 29 p6), who were responding to a number of accountability concerns raised by ICANN constituencies and stakeholder groups (CD Sept 5 p15). Chehade and Crocker said the “emerging theme” of the questions seemed to be “building trust” between ICANN leadership and its community.
ICANN’s accountability process “needs to include the stress testing of solutions to safeguard against future contingencies such as attempts to influence or take over ICANN functions that are not currently possible with the IANA functions contract in place,” said Strickling. The transition and the accountability process are “directly linked” and “must” be finalized before the transition takes place, he said. NTIA anticipates ICANN’s response to the accountability comments and its “plan for how to move the community forward on this critical topic,” he said. Strickling said the U.S. delegation at the ITU plenipotentiary in October will “oppose” efforts to give governments more control over the Internet. “We hope and expect that the growing acceptance of the multistakeholder approach by nations, especially those in the developing world, will offer a strong rebuttal” to such proposals, he said. Strickling said the IANA transition announcement didn’t spark the Russian government’s calls for increased government control of the Internet: “It is a historical fact that Russia has long argued for more governmental control of the Internet."
NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco has advocated for “stress tests,” which would establish safeguards for mechanisms that will replace NTIA oversight of the IANA functions (CD April 4 p11). Such tests would range from protecting against government censorship online to a sudden lack of ICANN financing.
ICANN should “rely” on the “pre-existing” cross-community working group (CCWG) model for the accountability process, said joint comments from ICANN constituencies and stakeholder groups (http://bit.ly/1pmr5rd). There should be a “clear standard” for the board’s “referral or rejection” of ICANN community recommendations, it said. The scope and mechanisms for the accountability process must not be “limited,” it said. What should be limited are the roles of “Experts Advisors, the ICANN Board Liaison” and ICANN staff members on “consensus calls” for the accountability process, it said. ICANN constituencies and stakeholder groups should each be allowed to appoint an “alternate representative” to the accountability process’ coordination group, it said.
"With the appearance of top-down control being imposed by ICANN board and management over the accountability process, it’s clear that ICANN the corporation does not trust the community to know what’s in our own best interests,” said the Generic Names Supporting Organization’s Business Constituency (http://bit.ly/1nALs9m). The BC was responding to the answers submitted by Chehade and Crocker Sept. 18. The question of “trust” isn’t about the ICANN community’s view of the present board, but “future boards,” when the community can’t rely on the U.S. government’s “leverage” for oversight, said the BC. The IANA transition is an opportunity to “establish mechanisms to rein-in a future board that would put ICANN’s corporate interests ahead of the community,” it said.
The BC suggested creating a permanent cross-community working group (CCWG) as a “check” on ICANN’s board. The CCWG would name members of “Review Teams” under the Affirmation of Commitments -- once those commitments are part of ICANN’s bylaws -- and select members of an Independent Review Panel, said the BC. The affirmation of commitments is a multistakeholder review process, agreed to by NTIA and ICANN in 2009, that many stakeholders regard as critical to maintaining ICANN’s accountability to stakeholders and the public (CD June 3 p2). The CCWG would also have the power to “spill” the ICANN board and select new board members, it said.
ICANN shouldn’t narrow the scope of the accountability process to address only IANA-related issues, said Robin Gross, executive director of IP Justice, an intellectual property and free speech advocacy group (http://bit.ly/1rtWmvB). The only “logical reason” to limit the scope of the accountability would be to “stifle the community from exploring accountability issues that ICANN would rather not be explored,” she said. “Decisions on the coordination group should be made by the stake-holders whom ICANN was established to serve, not appointed ‘experts’, ICANN staff, or board.”