Home / Blogs

ICANN Policymaking Should Be Even More Transparent

Transparency and accountability are embedded in ICANN’s core values. Indeed, ICANN’s Bylaws mandate that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner ...”. Public Interest Registry believes that a dedication to transparency is fundamental to the strength and continued effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.

The ICANN GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force’s transparency recommendations to the GNSO Operating Procedure are a step in the right direction, but they don’t go far enough. Due to an exception in the application of the SOI proposal, there is no real requirement that individuals disclose the identity or identities of who they represent in ICANN policymaking processes.

For there to be meaningful transparency in ICANN policymaking, participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the employers they represent as a condition to participating, without exception. And this should be inclusive of all parties. For example, if Party A retains Party B to participate in an ICANN process and Party B retains Party C to do the work, Party C needs to disclose both Party A and Party B (not just Party B). This disclosure requirement should apply regardless of the level of compensation involved, if any.

The rules proposed by the Task Force would require a person participating in the Policy Development Process (PDP) as a paid or unpaid representative of another party to disclose who they are representing. This sounds great, but there remains an enormous loophole in the application of the recommendation as follows:

“If professional, ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high-level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example, ‘I represent a Registry client’ or ‘I am representing a non-GNSO related entity.’”

This exception would swallow the rule as a mere claim of attorney-client privilege or an ‘ethical’ obligation placed into a consulting contract would prevent this important disclosure and block the GNSO from achieving the transparency that should be fundamental to the multistakeholder policy development process and is required in ICANN’s Bylaws.

This level of transparency is not unique to ICANN. Other trusted international policymaking organizations have worked to enshrine their commitment to transparency into their operations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted consultants representing others’ interests or lobbyists involved in the policymaking process can “lead to undue influence, unfair competition and regulatory capture to the detriment of the public interest and effective public policies.” In order to “safeguard the integrity of the public decision-making process,” the OECD seeks “a sound framework for transparency” that requires disclosure of clients for those engaged in the public policy process.

Just last year, the European Parliament adopted a “Transparency Register,” recognizing that “citizens should have the greatest possible trust in the Union’s institutions” and “that trust, in order to exist, needs to be underpinned by a perception that interest representation is bound by high ethical standards.”

This is also consistent with U.S. requirements that organizations and lobbyists disclose on behalf of which clients they seek to influence the lawmaking process at the United States Congress.

The common theme in each of these disclosure requirements is that for there to be fairness and increased trust in the results of policymaking, transparency must be the foundation of those processes. And if parties don’t disclose for whom they represent—all the way to the source—they should not be able to participate.

The loophole shows an apparent assumption there is some professional/ethical obligation that is somehow stronger than the normative OECD/EU/US disclosure regimes. Common sense dictates that requiring disclosure in order to participate in an ICANN process wouldn’t violate a privilege any more than would similar requirements at the U.S. Congress or the European Parliament. For that matter, any argument of attorney-client privilege is a red herring, as it ignores the fact that, at least under U.S. law, client identities are generally not even considered covered by the privilege.

To be clear, there have been and are a number of very productive and helpful members of the ICANN community who have actively participated in past and ongoing GNSO processes without disclosing who they represent. We are not suggesting that they have done anything wrong; they simply operated within the rules in place and adhered to client requests not to disclose their identities.

The GNSO SOI Task Force has an important opportunity to upgrade ICANN’s transparency, but on its current trajectory, it is falling short of its potential. Now is the time to fundamentally improve these transparency rules in order to live up to ICANN’s Bylaws and international best practices. ICANN should be a beacon of transparency in its policymaking. Let’s remove the loophole.

For more information, please see PIR’s public comments.

By Jon Nevett, CEO, Public Interest Registry

Filed Under


I'm shocked John Berryhill  –  Nov 11, 2022 5:48 AM

Are you suggesting that all of the ICANN participants employed by law firms weren’t generously funded by those firms to spend their time and energy pro bono for the good of humanity?

Carlton Samuels  –  Nov 15, 2022 3:10 PM

Yes, an intriguing ICANN contortion, that the guy paid 6-figures and on work as a names and numbers policy development participant has the same stake as a guy paid zip and riding steerage 12 hours to represent the public interest.

Here’s another uniquely ICANNesqe pretention.  That a conflict of interest exist only when it is undeclared.

Carlton Samuels

Representative of a Representative of a Proxy Organization Sivasubramanian M  –  Nov 16, 2022 5:12 AM

“if Party A retains Party B to participate in an ICANN process and Party B retains Party C to do the work, Party C needs to disclose both Party A and Party B (not just Party B)”  ... not only that, but also if Party B’s client, i.e Party A is affiliated to a still undisclosed organisation which engages in the ICANN Policy process with remote invisibility.  ICANN (and by extension the policy makers elsewhere) could insist on full disclosure of what may be called “chain of affiliation”;  It also requires a more elaborate declaration, not just “the above statement is true”,  to ” I also declare that I have not withheld any information related to my representation or affiliation that is relevant” etc.

Non-disclosure of what ought to have been disclosed Sivasubramanian M  –  Nov 16, 2022 5:19 AM

Also, there could be a process by which ICANN performs appropriate due diligence to determine if Party C (or D) participating and influencing policies has withheld pertinent information, and in cases where there is wilful non-disclosure, act upon its finding by barring participation of Party A or the still undisclosed organisation in ICANN processes, as the very least, with no restraints on further penalties if due.

Right answer. Wrong question. Evan Leibovitch  –  Nov 18, 2022 10:44 AM

That all this commentary brouhaha is about mere statements of interest, says all one needs to know about the ICANN take on transparency and accountability.

Double-dealing, naked self-service, and sitting on both sides of contract negotiations are all legit within ICANN ... so long as one declares. So debate all you want about the minutiae of SOIs.  The real conflict of interest issues remain taboo, their avoidance embedded in ICANN culture like nowhere else.

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.

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.

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



New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC


Sponsored byDNIB.com

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign


Sponsored byVerisign