Proposed ICANN Accountability Changes in Question Again Amid Work To Address Stakeholders' Concerns

A proposed set of changes to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms is in question again amid continued work by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) to address concerns raised in public comments on the latest draft of its accountability proposal, stakeholders said in interviews. Most parties that submitted feedback about the latest CCWG-Accountability draft supported the draft proposals. But they raised significant concerns about recommendations on how the ICANN board should handle Governmental Advisory Committee consensus advice after the planned Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition and stakeholders’ rights to inspect ICANN documents (see 1512220040).

The CCWG-Accountability proposal is “on the cusp” between the path to a successful conclusion and failure, with its future direction largely dependent on what the working group decides to compromise on, Red Branch Consulting founder Paul Rosenzweig said. CCWG-Accountability’s newest draft included language on handling GAC advice (see 1511270048) that was supposed to be a final compromise that would clear the way for the working group to finalize its accountability proposal, but that language is now the proposal's “most controversial” part, said Milton Mueller, Georgia Tech communication and information public policy professor. CCWG-Accountability had recommended that the ICANN board be able to reject Governmental Advisory Committee consensus advice via a two-thirds board vote, but not be required to seek a compromise with GAC when it rejects nonconsensus advice.

The GAC recommendation drew support from most stakeholders that submitted comments on the CCWG-Accountability draft, but significant stakeholder factions now are concerned the recommendation would either give GAC “too much power” or “not enough,” Mueller said. Several GAC members raised concerns about both the GAC recommendation and proposed limits on the scope of ICANN’s mission statement that would also limit the issues on which GAC could provide advice, Mueller said. Some of those members could call for outright rejection of the CCWG-Accountability plan if those mission limitations aren’t modified, but it’s unclear whether their opposition would “lead to some kind of major impasse,” he said.

CCWG-Accountability is grappling with the ICANN board’s concerns about the proposed scope of stakeholders’ inspection rights, Mueller and Rosenzweig said. The board and some stakeholders have been pushing back against CCWG-Accountability’s proposed inspection rights scope as being too broad, but “I’m not sure how much of that is posturing,” Rosenzweig said: “I think the board is trying to avoid being subject” to stricter transparency rules “and I’m concerned about that.” A CCWG-Accountability conference call Wednesday that focused on addressing the inspection rights issue was “pretty contentious,” though CCWG-Accountability leaders believe they're near a compromise, an industry lobbyist told us.

It’s still whether concerns about the GAC or inspection rights provisions could endanger the overall CCWG-Accountability proposal, but that will depend on what compromises the working group reaches, Mueller said. “I’m hoping that people will be reasonable and realize the sensitivity of these issues,” he said. “There have to be limitations on ICANN’s mission statement.” CCWG-Accountability is also “nibbling around the edges” of its draft proposal to address other stakeholder concerns, but those issues are relatively minor and “don’t seem like showstoppers,” Mueller said.

CCWG-Accountability’s work on additional compromises is likely to delay finalization of the proposal and approval by ICANN’s chartering organizations beyond working group leaders’ anticipated late January deadline, stakeholders said. Final submission to the ICANN board is now more likely to occur in mid- to late February, said Phil Corwin, principal of e-commerce and IP law consultancy Virtualaw. A combination of the ICANN board’s comments and concerns raised by other stakeholders “effectively killed the leaders’ ridiculously aggressive schedule,” Mueller said. Delays in that timeline likely mean ICANN’s March 5-10 meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, will be even more focused on the CCWG-Accountability proposal, “since we could still be finalizing the proposal at that point,” he said.