ICANN Stakeholders to Pivot Back to Domain Names Policy Focus in Helsinki Meeting

A pivot away from an IANA transition focus in Helsinki will be a relief since the issue dominated discussions during all of the nonprofit’s meetings since NTIA announced the transition in March 2014 (see report in the March 17, 2014, issue), stakeholders told us. “The community is somewhat exhausted with the transition issue and it’s good it’s now in our rear-view mirror,” said Donuts Executive Vice President Jon Nevett. “I think talk about the IANA transition has sucked all the air out of the room over the last few years,” said internet lawyer Greg Shatan of McCarter & English. ICANN’s focus on policy issues beyond the IANA transition never wavered, but the conclusion of major work on transition planning means many stakeholders will “turn their attention to other issues now that they have the time to do so,” said ICANN Senior Vice President-Policy Development Support David Olive. “The community will have time now to turn to other issues that have been put on hold,” said Phil Corwin, principal of e-commerce and IP law consultancy Virtualaw.

The IANA transition will remain on the radar as implementation of the transition plans moves forward, but “there’s at least a chance now” to focus on other critical domain names policy work, Shatan said. The IANA transition will still have a presence at the Helsinki meeting via behind-the-scenes discussions and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability’s (CCWG-Accountability) work on a second set of accountability mechanism changes, Corwin and others said. CCWG-Accountability is examining a range of accountability issues that were deemed noncritical to the IANA transition, including resolving questions about whether to make Los Angeles permanent as ICANN HQ to maintain U.S. legal jurisdiction, Corwin said. CCWG-Accountability is also looking at additional ICANN board transparency measures and implementation of a bylaw requiring the organization to respect international human rights to the extent required by applicable law. CCWG-Accountability was to meet Sunday ahead of the ICANN meeting’s official start.

There will be “some chatter" among stakeholders about Congress’ review of the IANA transition plans, which has turned increasingly political since NTIA released its review on the plans earlier this month, Shatan said. Several Capitol Hill Republicans want a delay of the transition, while Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, led a group of GOP lawmakers claiming NTIA may have spent money on the IANA transition in violation of a ban on such expenditures contained in the FY 2016 omnibus spending bill(see 1606210049). ICANN participants' interest in Congress’ review is inevitable but “we’re operating on the premise that the transition will happen as scheduled” Sept. 30, Corwin said. “It’s all about politics now and there’s no sense in worrying about that right now.”

Three separate domain names policy development processes (PDPs) that have ramped up since the Marrakech meeting are likely to generate the most interest in Helsinki, including the New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures PDP, Shatan said. The Generic Names Supporting Organization initiated the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP after ICANN released a report in December urging additional policy development related to the gTLD program ahead of any future rounds of new gTLD rollouts. Many domain name interests said reviews of the new gTLD program’s policies are necessary before ICANN begins a second round (see 1410140156). Discussions on gTLD program procedures revisions are still in the early stages but it’s clear the PDP “will broadly shape the future of the gTLD market and how it works,” Shatan said.

Many also will be watching the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP, which is examining the efficacy of the current RPMs, said Rightside Vice President-Business and Legal Affairs Statton Hammock. Helsinki will be crucial for the RPM PDP working group because the conference will include the group’s first face-to-face meeting, said Corwin, one of the working group’s co-chairmen. The working group initially will concentrate on the newer RPMs, including the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures, which trademark holders use to bring trademark infringement concerns directly to a domain name registry. The RPM PDP working group’s first phase also will examine ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse mechanism and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System, Corwin said. The working group’s second phase will review the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy and whether the policy requires any major improvements, Hammock said.

The Next Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) PDP also will generate interest in Helsinki as the PDP’s working group attempts to address “contentious issues” about its work to update or replace its existing WHOIS domain registration data framework, Shatan said. Working group members have divided into two camps on addressing the registration data framework issue, with privacy advocates in one camp and business and intellectual property interests in the other, Shatan said. The issues for a WHOIS update or replacement remain “complex” but important for stakeholders to pay attention to, Corwin said.