ICANN Proposal to Give GAC More Board Influence Poorly Timed, Risky, Say Experts

Internet governance experts we interviewed deplored the proposal, saying it conflicts with NTIA’s transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and gives governments too much potential sway over ICANN. The GAC acts in an advisory capacity to the ICANN board, but doesn’t have a vote (CD July 17 p15).

The GAC and ICANN board “must have a consultation regarding the Board’s intention to act consistently with GAC advice,” according to ICANN’s bylaws, said an ICANN spokesman by email. ICANN’s first Accountability and Transparency Review Team “recommended that this process be formalized,” and the GAC and board formed the Board-GAC Recommendations Implementation Working Group (BGRI), he said. That group developed a “formalized process that includes this higher voting threshold,” he said. The BGRI waited to see if there were any additional changes to ICANN bylaws before making this specific proposal, but no other changes were identified, he said. The BGRI presented the proposal to the board at ICANN 50 (CD June 30 p10; June 27 p7; June 24 p7), which approved the proposal for public comment, he said.

The proposal is “another example of how ICANN is creating a de-facto governmental organization inside itself,” said Milton Mueller, Syracuse University information studies professor, in an interview. ICANN is “playing with fire,” he said. Mueller is one of three ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) members on the IANA-related Coordination Group, which is charged with developing the IANA transition proposal (CD July 23 p11; July 8 p6; June 27 p7; June 24 p7). The GAC-related proposal isn’t related to that group, because the GAC isn’t in a position to offer advice on the IANA proposal, he said. Mueller said he has been critiquing what he considers to be the growing influence of the GAC within ICANN for a decade. Unlike other ICANN organizations, such as the GNSO, the ICANN board must vote on any consensus-based decision reached by the GAC, he said. “By proposing this ill-advised change, ICANN is corroding multistakeholder governance at its very foundations,” said Mueller in comments posted Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1sSHA4u).

The proposal’s timing is “inappropriate” in the context of NTIA’s IANA transition to an ICANN global multistakeholder body and ICANN’s concurrent accountability review, said Phil Corwin, founding principal of e-commerce and intellectual property law consultancy Virtualaw, in an interview. ICANN released an infographic (http://bit.ly/1vdRn3j) Aug. 15 outlining its new accountability process (http://bit.ly/1rd8og2). The IANA transition and accountability review are “inherently” linked with the “future role of governments within ICANN,” said Corwin. The “thrust” of the proposal would give governments “potentially much greater control over ICANN,” he said. “Everyone on Capitol Hill needs to understand that.” Such a proposal shouldn’t be considered until the IANA transition and ICANN’s accountability review are complete, he said.

"This particular proposal is absolutely the worst idea that ICANN has ever put forth,” said Danny Younger, former chair of ICANN’s Domain Name Supporting Organization General Assembly, in comments posted Monday (http://bit.ly/1yWDOW4). “ICANN should be a voice of all stakeholders -- not just governments,” said CEO John Kramer of Kundalera, a mobile app company, in Monday comments (http://bit.ly/YvWz7W): “As such [ICANN] should maintain its independence from [the] GAC as much as possible.”