ICANN Board, Some GAC Members Objecting to Accountability Proposal Elements

The proposed GAC carve-out is most noticeable when the ICANN community is considering removing board members over GAC advice implementation, but the board’s “concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model,” Crocker said. The proposed GAC carve-out would only require three of the four non-GAC supporting organizations (SOs) and advisory committees (ACs) to vote in favor of board removal. The ICANN board is pushing for modification of the carve-out to require a unanimous vote of all four non-GAC SOs and ACs. “Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation” during final consensus discussions on board removal in cases involving GAC advice implementation “raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained," Crocker said: "This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work” of CCWG-Accountability. The working group should go ahead with sharing its final proposal with ICANN chartering organizations, but should also have “a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN,” Crocker said. “If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter” during implementation of the ICANN accountability changes or in a planned second round of ICANN accountability changes, “we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone,” he said.

Meanwhile, GAC representatives from France and seven South American nations -- including Brazil -- signed on to a minority statement by GAC Vice Chairwoman Olga Cavalli objecting to the CCWG-Accountability proposal’s GAC carve-out and a recommendation that would require 60 percent of ICANN board members to vote to reject consensus GAC advice. “We are extremely disappointed by and object to the latest ‘compromise’ solution” on handling GAC advice,” the eight countries’ GAC representatives said in a minority statement to be attached to the CCWG-Accountability proposal. GAC had accepted an earlier CCWG-Accountability proposed recommendation that would have required a two-thirds majority vote of the ICANN board to reject consensus GAC advice. “Even though consensus should remain the GAC’s ultimate objective, the requirement to reach full consensus for each and every issue considered might lead, in some cases, to paralysis,” the GAC members said.

The ICANN board’s objection to the GAC carve-out “clearly has thrown things into a bit of disarray” but seems to have been motivated by the GAC members’ letter, Internet lawyer Greg Shatan of Abelman Frayne said in an interview. The board’s objection is narrower than the concerns raised in the GAC members’ letter because it only pushes for a unanimous vote among remaining SOs and ACs rather than for scrapping the GAC carve-out altogether, “which is a good thing,” Shatan said: “It’s not a small problem but it’s not earth-shattering, either. I think it’s anybody’s guess right now how [CCWG-Accountability] will react to” the board’s proposal. "Something this substantive comingat such a late hour" in CCWG-Accountability's work "is a bit out of place," said Phil Corwin, principal of e-commerce and IP law consultancy Virtualaw.