Clear ICANN Accountability Process Needed Before IANA Transition, Say INTA, ccNSO Council
ICANN groups reaffirmed the need to solidify the non-profit’s accountability process before moving forward with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, in public comments last week (http://bit.ly/1ncHROw). The Internet Committee of the International Trademark Association (INTA) criticized the ICANN community’s lack of input in choosing experts and advisors for the non-profit’s accountability review (http://bit.ly/1rypVxQ). The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council doubted that ICANN’s proposed “community working group” would serve the accountability process any better than the “cross community working group” (http://bit.ly/1rklirP). Stakeholders have asked whether ICANN is intent on developing an accountability process that holds the non-profit accountable to itself or to the community it serves (CD Aug 27 p9).
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 21-day accountability comment period responded to questions at the recent Internet Governance Forum (CD Sept 3 p15) and a letter from ICANN’s major constituencies and groups (CD Sept 5 p15). ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade and board Chairman Steve Crocker submitted answers to the stakeholder and constituency groups’ questions Sept. 18. The Public Experts Group (PEG) for ICANN’s accountability process extended its deadline to choose seven advisers for the process (http://bit.ly/1vdRn3j), from Sept. 10 to Sept. 30 (http://bit.ly/1mZr3EP) (CD Sept 11 p15). ICANN cited the accountability comment period’s Sept. 27 deadline as the reason for the extension. NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling is one four members of PEG, which is asking for community input on the seven advisors. Chehade selected the four PEG members.
ICANN shouldn’t put the PEG on the accountability coordination group, because it “could constitute a conflict of interest in violation of the neutral facilitator role that the NTIA has requested ICANN to assume,” INTA said Thursday. “Supportive resources” should be provided to the coordination group at the group’s “initiative and request,” it said. INTA was troubled that the accountability cross-community working group will have “no say” in the selection of the seven advisors by the PEG. It’s “inadequate” to limit participation on the coordination group to one representative per Generic Names Supporting Organization stakeholder group, said INTA. That threshold wouldn’t “ensure the participation of business interests and/or brand-owners through the Business Constituency or the Intellectual Property Consistency,” it said. INTA said the IANA transition should proceed only after the approval of ICANN’s accountability process.
The “community working group” proposed by ICANN doesn’t offer any “benefits or advantages” compared to the “trusted” cross-community working group model, said the ccNSO Council Thursday. The reasoning behind the proposed former group “appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee or a ‘newcomer,'” it said. “Serious thought needs to be given to how to enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a way that does not undermine the existing engagement structure,” the council said. The cross-community working group and other coordinating bodies should work with ICANN to identify accountability mechanisms that “must be in place” before the IANA transition, it said.
The seven advisors are expected to work in an “open and transparent” manner, Chehade and Crocker said, in response to 20 questions related to the accountability process from ICANN stakeholder and constituency groups. The advisors aren’t expected to be experts on the full range of topics related to ICANN accountability, and it’s “important that the Coordination Group not be overpopulated by external experts,” they said. The goal is to “obtain external expertise to bring in best practices” from the advisors, they said. If members of the coordination group find a need for “additional independent input or expertise, the advisors may seek this additional input through the Public Experts Group or their own networks,” they said.