Home / Blogs

ICANN Accountability Progress Made in Second CCWG Draft Proposal

The December 21 deadline for submission of public comments on the latest CCWG-Accountability draft proposal is quickly approaching. In this second draft of the proposal, great strides have been made toward addressing the accountability issues that members of the community have raised (notably, Lawrence Strickling’s recent remarks).

As I have previously emphasized, any plan to ensure the accountability of the ICANN Board of Directors must be closely scrutinized before ICANN pursues its implementation. Now that the CCWG-Accountability has incorporated so many of the public’s suggestions, it’s time for the community to take a more detailed look at the proposal.

The current version offers many new specifics: it gives additional powers to the stakeholder community and presents a new model for many of the processes involved in ensuring accountability. For example, under the latest proposal, the community would have the right to approve any changes to fundamental ICANN bylaws, by way of a thorough 9-step process rooted in ensuring consensus. Careful considerations have been made to ensure that the system is effective and as efficient as possible, while preventing abuse of power.

However, one potential area of concern to business interests is recommendation 11. Under this proposed change to ICANN bylaws, any rejection of GAC advice that has been reached by consensus would require two-thirds of the ICANN Board to vote against the proposal. The definition of “consensus” in this case is “understood to be the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.” Business interests must make it clear that consensus must not be defined as a simple majority, but must remain general agreement without substantial opposition.

We encourage the ICANN Board to accept the next CCWG-Accountability proposal. Some of the measures proposed represent significant changes, but given the entrepreneurial spirit of the Internet itself, the means by which it is managed should be innovative. In the event that the ICANN Board does not accept this proposal, we suggest an international, third-party mediator be brought in to work with the Board and representatives of the CCWG to find a resolution.

It is also important for the community to keep in mind that there is no need to rush this process. Although deadlines have been suggested for the IANA transfer, above all, it is most important that we get this right.

By J. Scott Evans, Trademark Director and Associate General Counsel at Adobe

J. Scott Evans joined Adobe Systems as Associate General Counsel responsible for global trademarks, copyright, domains and marketing in October 2013.

Visit Page

Filed Under

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

VINTON CERF
Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Comments

California corporations code issues Karl Auerbach  –  Jan 1, 2016 12:25 AM

These attempts seem to be taking a big risk in regard to their validity under California Corporations Code section 5210 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000&file=5210-5215) and sections 5033 and 5034 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000&file=5002-5080)

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

Related

Topics

Domain Management

Sponsored byMarkMonitor

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPXO

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Cybersecurity

Sponsored byVerisign