'No Objection' From ICANN GAC to Advancing Accountability Proposal
Three of ICANN's six chartering organizations voted Tuesday and Wednesday to either support or not object to sending the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability’s (CCWG-Accountability) proposed set of changes to ICANN's accountability mechanisms on to the ICANN board for a final vote. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) agreed Tuesday it has “no objection” to sending the CCWG-Accountability proposal to the ICANN board. The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) agreed Wednesday to support the CCWG-Accountability proposal, as expected (see 1603040065). ICANN's other three chartering organizations previously said they support the CCWG-Accountability proposal, meaning no chartering organization outright objects to the proposal. The ICANN board is to consider both the CCWG Accountability proposal and a finalized Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority transition plan Thursday at ICANN's meeting in Marrakech, Morocco.
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.
GAC told CCWG-Accountability it wasn't objecting to advancing the working group's proposal despite a “difference of opinions” among GAC members on three of the proposal's recommendations on GAC's status in a post-IANA transition ICANN. Although some governments' delegations “have expressed support for the proposal, there are other delegations that were not in a position to endorse the proposal as a whole,” GAC said in its letter to CCWG-Accountability. GAC was expected to say it had no objections to advancing the CCWG-Accountability proposal to the ICANN board but debated Tuesday whether to say it supported only some of the proposal's 12 recommendations or to say the group hadn't reached a consensus on supporting the full proposal (see 1603080069). The ccNSO and GNSO councils voted to support the CCWG-Accountability proposal in its entirety. The ccNSO Council voted unanimously to support the proposal, and the GNSO Council voted 19-2 to support it.
GAC said there's “no consensus” on CCWG-Accountability's recommendation that the ICANN board be allowed to reject consensus GAC advice via a 60 percent majority vote and a “carve-out” provision that would bar the committee from final consensus discussions on possible enforcement action when ICANN community members formally object to ICANN board implementation of GAC advice. The carve-out would affect two of CCWG-Accountability's recommendations, which GAC said it's willing to accept in a way that will allow the group to “take part in the envisioned empowered community mechanism as a decisional participant, under conditions to be determined internally.” GAC also reaffirmed its “role as an advisory committee to the ICANN board and within the ICANN multistakeholder environment and will continue to advise on relevant matters of concern with regard to government and public interests.”
Several GNSO stakeholders also raised concerns via GNSO's letter supporting the CCWG-Accountability proposal with the working group's recommendation on ICANN board rejection of GAC advice. GNSO's IP Constituency (IPC) said it “continues to believe that in order for” the ICANN board to increase the deference it gives to consensus GAC advice via the heightened vote threshold for rejecting that advice, GAC must reach consensus on its advice “in transparent sessions open to all ICANN stakeholders.” GAC must also “state that it is not aware of any national or international law or treaty which the consensus advice would contravene,” the IPC said. Several members of GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group said they “remain concerned because [CCWG-Accountability's recommendation] raises the threshold by which the board can refuse to follow GAC advice.” Several NCSG members “remain concerned about providing GAC enhanced power over the [ICANN board], and about the Board’s ability to refuse to follow GAC advice, particularly when said advice contradicts policy developed through the bottom-up policy development process by the ICANN community,” said University of Amsterdam assistant professor Stefania Milan.