Increasing ICANN Board Voting Threshold for GAC Advice Could Complicate GNSO Policy
Increasing ICANN’s board voting threshold to reject the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) could complicate the policy development of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), commented ICANN stakeholders this week (http://bit.ly/1oXwOCq). ICANN proposed Aug. 15 to increase the board’s voting threshold from 50 percent (plus the vote of an additional board member) to 66.6 percent (CD Aug 20 p3). If the proposal were accepted without mandating that the GAC advice be reached by consensus, and not majority approval, the proposal could risk ICANN becoming an intergovernmental organization, said Avri Doria, ICANN GNSO council member (http://bit.ly/1lTVXDq).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The proposal received little support in comments so far received. ICANN board Chairman Steve Crocker had said the proposal is merely “cementing” the board’s typical treatment of GAC advice. The GAC acts in an advisory capacity to the board; The GNSO has two members on the board.
The proposal is a “very bad idea,” said Jothan Frakes, ICANN At-Large community member (http://bit.ly/1qFN4Ou). Even at the current 50 percent threshold, “poor” GAC advice has been accepted that disrupted “sound” GNSO policy and put a “tremendous burden” on businesses, he said. Frakes said he’s “grateful” for the GAC, but said the proposal would create a “higher burden” for the board to “balance ... problematic or challenging” advice.
The proposal should be “rejected,” said joint comments from Heritage Foundation scholars Paul Rosenzweig, visiting fellow; Brett Schaefer, senior research fellow-international regulatory affairs; and James Gattuso, senior research fellow-regulatory policy (http://bit.ly/1qFE3Vm). The proposal is “fundamentally misconceived” because it “wrongly equates GAC advice to that” of the GNSO, “risks GAC control of Board functionality” and doesn’t abide by NTIA’s guiding principles of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority transition, they said. If the GAC were involved in policy development vis-à-vis the GNSO, its “input would have the imprimatur of the multistakeholder process,” they said. Because the GAC isn’t involved in policy development, the GAC advice doesn’t have the same “legitimacy,” they said. The Heritage scholars had several recommendations, including ensuring that the GAC remains an advisory body to the board.
"Without a by-laws requirement for a consensus based advisory” for the GAC, the proposal would be a “dangerous amendment,” said the GNSO’s Doria. If the GAC changed its threshold for advice for the board from a “consensus based standard to a majority based standard,” there would be the potential for governments to create “one sided” advice that would illustrate the “tyranny” of the majority, she said. “I see no reason that other Advisory Committees should not be included under a similar process change.” ICANN’s bylaws are already “lopsided in providing greater status” to GAC advice than the advice of other advisory committees, she said. “I see no reason for such disparity and certainly see no reason for increasing the disparity even further.”
The “handling” of the proposal has had the effect of “greatly diminishing confidence in the ICANN Board at a critical time in the history of the Internet,” said John Savage, Brown University computer science professor (http://bit.ly/1pPLUdM). More “substantial” government oversight of ICANN would “enhance its legitimacy,” but “serious and lengthy public discussion” should precede those changes, he said. “Government representatives should not be dictating technical decisions,” said Savage. “Governments should be constrained by rules that ensure the secure and stable operation” of the Domain Name System (DNS), he said. It’s “desirable” that governments engage in “dispute resolution and information sharing to reduce threats to DNS,” Savage said.