ICANN, NTIA Heads To Laud IANA Transition Progress, Demur on Timeline at House Communications Hearing

Both Chehadé and Strickling appeared in written testimony to back away from stating a specific IANA transition timeline, though Chehade had stated during the ICANN meeting that he anticipated that the IANA transition could be completed by the end of June 2016 (see 1506220053). House Communications Republicans said in a briefing memo that they're seeking the hearing both to determine the extent of progress on IANA transition planning and to discuss ongoing concerns about ICANN’s generic top-level domain (gTLD) program.

Feedback from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has made it “clear that we will need to extend the current IANA contract” past its Sept. 30 expiration date, Strickling said in written testimony. An extension of the IANA contract has been widely anticipated and was the impetus for Strickling’s request for more concrete timeline information from ICG and CCWG-Accountability. Both working groups submitted letters to Strickling in the days leading up to the House Communications hearing indicating the IANA transition is likely to take at least a month longer than the June 2016 time frame cited at ICANN 53.

The ICG estimated that “at the earliest the transition could be complete in the July 2016 time frame,” while CCWG-Accountability said that under a best-case scenario it would need until at least the end of the same month to implement changes to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. CCWG-Accountability said it may need additional time beyond that if the group continues to have trouble reaching consensus on its ICANN accountability proposal, meaning NTIA should anticipate that ICANN accountability changes may not be complete until as late as September 2016. NTIA is “taking this information into account in order to determine the appropriate extension time period for the current contract,” Strickling said.

FairWinds Partners CEO Nao Matsukata told us he believes the IANA transition will take “a little longer” than Chehadé originally anticipated during ICANN 53. “I think that Congress is going to be able to extend the process by virtue of not only [the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act (HR-805/S-1551)] but also because of some of the strings that they can pull around funding,” Matsukata said. “There’s a little bit of political grandstanding going around about this issue, and in those instances it generally means things get delayed.” The DOTCOM Act would give Congress a 30-legislative day window to review a report from NTIA authorizing that ICANN’s IANA transition plan meets U.S. goals on Internet openness. The House has passed its version of the bill (HR-805) while the Senate still needs to consider its version (S-1551), after the Senate Commerce Committee’s clearance of the bill last month (see 1506250059). The ultimate end date for the IANA transition is likely to be somewhere between ICANN’s best-case scenario estimates and delays proposed by Congress, Matsukata said.

Both Chehadé and Strickling lauded the ICANN chartering organizations’ approval at ICANN 53 of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions’ (CCWG-Stewardship) IANA transition plan proposal, the last of the three community IANA transition proposals that ICG will now combine into a single transition proposal. “The ICG’s role is crucial because it must build a public record on how the three customer group submissions tie together in a manner that ensures NTIA’s criteria are met and institutionalized over the long term,” Strickling said in his written testimony. Chehadé said he continues to anticipate that ICG will have a final version of its IANA transition proposal ready for consideration at ICANN’s Oct. 18-22 meeting in Dublin. CCWG-Accountability also expects to have a final version of its ICANN accountability proposal ready for chartering organizations’ consideration at the Dublin meeting, Chehadé said. CCWG-Accountability is to meet July 17-18 in Paris to work on a revised version of the proposal.

Chehadé and Strickling are unlikely to fully satisfy House Communications’ concerns about the IANA transition process “because their answers cannot be specific about the contours of timeline for the community’s proposals,” said NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco, a member of CCWG-Accountability and ICANN’s Business Constituency vice chairman-policy coordination. “If [House Communications] is looking for contours and timelines, they’re probably not going to get answers that are going to be sufficiently specific to be satisfied. I hope the subcommittee presses them to acknowledge that NTIA and ICANN will respect the community’s proposals” and to acknowledge that the DOTCOM Act requires ICANN adoption of those community proposals in order for NTIA to proceed with the IANA transition, DelBianco said. Congress “deserves a lot of credit” for evolving its position on the IANA transition via the DOTCOM Act, given its initial “state of surprise and frustration,” he said.