ICANN Stakeholders Generally Praise Revised Draft Proposal on IANA Transition, Seek Additional Comment Time

Many of the concepts included in the revised proposal “seem to be workable,” including making a PTI a legally separate ICANN subsidiary and limiting PTI’s scope to the “minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers," the ICANN board said. PTI as currently proposed would have a "lightweight structure” that would allow it to only perform the IANA functions and make it dependent on ICANN for all of its funding, the ICANN board said. PTI would have no policymaking role and would be required to adhere to ICANN accountability measures currently under review on a parallel track by ICANN’s cross-community working group on ICANN accountability (CCWG-Accountability), the ICANN board said. CWG-Accountability’s draft proposal, released earlier this month, recommends that ICANN community members have additional power to influence decisions made by the ICANN board, along with giving them the power to recall the entire board or individual board members (see 1505060067). PTI “must have a clearly drawn framework that defines its remit” and should have a well-defined role, the ICANN board said. PTI shouldn’t “undermine nor jeopardize ICANN’s not-for-profit public benefit status” and “should strive to adhere” to ICANN organizing principles, the board said.

The ICANN Business Constituency generic names supporting organization (GNSO) said it supports CWG-Stewardship’s decision to scrap its earlier proposal to create a completely separate entity to carry out the IANA functions in favor of the proposed PTI subsidiary and believes that PTI, like ICANN, should be formed as a California-based nonprofit corporation. The PTI board should be formed from current ICANN board members to ensure ICANN remains the “locus of accountability” and to ensure the two boards “can avoid responsibility for any operational shortcomings by seeking to hold the other responsible,” the Business Constituency said. ICANN should extend the current comment period on the CWG-Stewardship revised proposal to June 3 so it coincides with the deadline for comments on the CCWG-Accountability proposal, the Business Constituency said. ICANN should also provide for an additional comment period in July for the CWG-Stewardship proposal that coincides with a previously planned second comment period on the CCWG-Accountability proposal “so that the community has a complete view of the proposals,” the Business Constituency said. CCWG-Accountability co-chairmen Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez and Mathieu Weill said they believe the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal meets the CWG-Stewardship’s expectations on ICANN accountability.

Google praised CWG-Stewardship’s work to simplify the IANA transition plan in its revised proposal and urged the group to give PTI a very narrow focus in its final proposal. The CSC and IFRT should also have narrowly defined authorities and should be more clearly defined in the final proposal, Google said. CWG-Stewardship should provide ICANN community stakeholders with a projected financial impact of any changes it recommends in its final proposal and should continue to coordinate with CCWG-Accountability to ensure their proposals harmonize, Google said.

The Center for Democracy and Technology said it supports creating PTI, CSC and IFRT over any effort to further “internalize” the IANA functions within ICANN, saying it believes PTI “ensures a level of separation and independence of ICANN and represents a mix of the internal and external models proposed to date.” CDT said it does remain concerned that the CWG-Stewardship proposal is so dependent on the adoption of the CCWG-Accountability proposal and on the proposed “new community powers being in place.”

The Internet Governance Project (IGF) said it interprets the current CWG-Stewardship comment period as a “referendum on the basic model proposed, as well as a chance for the CWG to obtain guidance on the additional decisions it must make to complete the proposal.” The basic model CWG-Stewardship proposes “is an important step in the right direction” but more revisions are needed, IGF said. All IANA assets and functions should be part of PTI’s purview, rather than “just those related to names,” and PTI should be a public benefit corporation rather than an LLC, IGF said. PTI’s board should comprise “insiders and outsiders,” IGF said.

A group of Chinese stakeholders speaking on behalf of the Chinese government faulted ICANN for only providing for an initial 28-day comment period on the CWG-Stewardship proposal, saying the initial unavailability of non-English versions of the proposal was an additional “significant barrier to the non-English speaking communities, as the document is rather lengthy and complex.” The Chinese stakeholders also said the CWG-Stewardship proposal was incomplete because of its dependence on the CCWG-Accountability proposal. “We believe it will make more sense if the proposal could provide a description of how this proposal has been worked upon closely coordinated with CCWG and how the two proposals are going to be integrated together in the future,” the Chinese stakeholders said.

India’s government said it was concerned that the CWG-Stewardship proposal “effectively places ICANN in the role of the perpetual contracting authority for the IANA function, by placing ICANN in the shoes of the NTIA as the body that awards the IANA Functions Contract.” That situation “runs the risk of creating the perception that ICANN is no longer purely a technical coordination body -- a perception which is strengthened by hiving off the technical aspects of performance of the IANA function” onto PTI, India’s government said.