ICANN Stakeholders Examining Compromise Community Powers Enforcement Model
A possible compromise mechanism for enforcing proposed new ICANN community powers received increased attention during Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) sessions in the first days of ICANN’s Dublin meeting. The compromise “sole designator” model is being touted by supporters as a way to break a stalemate between backers of CCWG-Accountability’s original enforcement single member model and the ICANN board’s proposed “Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism” (see 1509140064).
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.
Negotiations over the CCWG-Accountability proposal, seen as crucial to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, are widely seen as dominating the ICANN 54 meeting’s agenda (see 1510160058). CCWG-Accountability began its work in Dublin amid continued calls from ICANN leaders to reach a consensus, while congressional staff emphasized Capitol Hill’s insistence on ICANN’s proposals on the IANA transition and accountability meet NTIA criteria.
The sole designator model, essentially a strengthened version of ICANN’s current governance model, would allow the ICANN community to vote to use a potential recall of the entire ICANN board or individual board members as a final threat if the board refuses to accede to the community on ICANN policy and budgetary issues after arbitration. CCWG-Accountability’s original single member model would allow the ICANN community to enforce its powers by taking the ICANN board to court, while the board-supported Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism would institute an internal arbitration system to resolve disputes between the community and the ICANN board.
ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) voted Sunday to withdraw its support for the single member model following the increased interest in the designator model. However, "should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated" by CCWG-Accountability "and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model," said ALAC Chairman Alan Greenberg in an email to CCWG-Accountability's mailing list.
The ICANN board “supports consideration of the designator model” because it's close to ICANN’s current governance model and is “willing to participate in investigating how a sole designator model could be implemented,” said ICANN Vice Chairman Bruce Tonkin during CCWG-Accountability’s meeting Monday. NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco cautioned during the meeting that “if we settle on the designator model” there should be a “certain checklist of conditions” for enforcing recall threats.
Negotiations on a proposal to amend ICANN’s bylaws to require the ICANN board to find a “mutually acceptable solution” when the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provides advice that’s supported by GAC member consensus have been more contentious, with multiple governments’ representatives indicating they continue to oppose the amendment. The U.S., Canadian and U.K. governments continue to support the proposed amendment, but Brazil and multiple other EU-member governments oppose it.
ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé said Monday he continues to believe that ICANN can submit its IANA transition plans to NTIA and complete work to prepare for the transition by the current Sept. 16 expiration of NTIA’s contract with ICANN for the IANA functions. “Our ability to move forward is very much in your hands,” Chehadé said. “We need the proposals to be complete, because we cannot implement without having your final proposal.” He said he believes the "community that comes together here in Dublin will continue in its commitment to keep the momentum forward, to finish our work and to deliver to the world what the world is watching us do."
A recent letter to ICANN from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Internet Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, was meant to show that the Senate continues to believe that IANA transition planning should involve a “bottom-up process that results in robust and significant accountability reforms and that guards against” increasing governments’ influence within ICANN, said Jeffrey Farrah, Senate Commerce counsel. “Those are the types of things” Thune will look for in any final IANA transition proposal submitted to NTIA, Farrah said. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., “has also felt very strongly” about ICANN adhering to the NTIA requirements for the IANA transition in any final proposal, said House Communications Chief Counsel David Redl. NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling has pledged to provide an analysis of the IANA transition proposal to Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes its version of the House-passed Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act (HR-805/S-1551), and “we’re really hoping to see a rigorous analysis” of the final transition proposal, Redl said.