Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

ICANN ditches plan to give governments more power

Kevin Murphy, February 25, 2015, 17:52:20 (UTC), Domain Policy

ICANN has quietly abandoned a plan to make it harder for its board of directors to go against the wishes of national governments.
A proposal to make a board two-thirds super-majority vote a requirement for overruling advice provided by the Governmental Advisory Committee is now “off the table”, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade told a US Senate committee hearing today.
The threshold, which would replace the existing simple majority requirement, was proposed last August as a result of talks in a board-GAC working group.
At the time, I described the proposal as a “fait accompli” — the board had even said it would use the higher threshold in votes on GAC advice in advance of the required bylaws change.
But now it’s seemingly gone.
The news emerged during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation today in Washington DC, which was looking into the transition of US oversight of ICANN’s IANA functions to a multi-stakeholder process.
Asked by Sen. Deb Fischer whether the threshold change was consistent with ICANN’s promise to limit the power of governments in a post-US-oversight world, Chehade replied:

You are right, this would be incongruent with the stated goals [of the IANA transition]. The board has looked at that matter and has pushed it back. So it’s off the table.

That came as news to me, and to others listening to the hearing.
The original plan to change the bylaws came in a board resolution last July.
If it’s true that the board has since changed its mind, that discussion does not appear to have been documented in any of the published minutes of ICANN board meetings.
If the board has indeed changed its mind, it has done so with the near-unanimous blessing of the rest of the ICANN community (although I doubt the GAC was/will be happy).
The public comment period on the proposal attracted dozens of responses from community members, all quite vigorously opposed to the changes.
The ICANN report on the public comments was due October 2, so it’s currently well over four months late.
UPDATE 1: An ICANN spokesperson just got in touch to say that the board decided to ditch its plan in response to the negative public comments.
UPDATE 2: Another ICANN spokesperson has found a reference to the board’s U-turn in the transcript of a meeting between the ICANN board and GAC at the Los Angeles public meeting last October. A brief exchange between ICANN chair Steve Crocker and Heather Dryden, then chair of the GAC, reads:

DRYDEN: On the issue of the proposed bylaw changes to amend them to a third — two-thirds majority to reject or take a decision not consistent with the GAC’s advice, are there any updates there that the Board would like to — the Board or NGPC? I think it’s a Board matter? Yes?
Well, you’ve seen the substantial reaction to the proposal.
The reaction embodies, to some extent, misunderstanding of what the purpose and the context was, but it also is very instructive to all of us that the timing of all this comes in the middle of the broader accountability question.
So it’s — I think it’s in everyone’s interest, GAC’s interest, Board’s interest, and the entire community’s interest, to put this on hold and come back and revisit this in a larger context, and that’s our plan.

So it seems that the ICANN board did tip its hand a few months ago, but not many people, myself included, noticed.

Tagged: , , , , ,

Comments (2)

  1. Don says:

    Kevin – I’m not so sure on this. We all know Chehade chooses his words very carefully. He’s very smooth – even slick. He testified, presumably under oath, that it was off the table. To me off the table means just that – it’s off the table. But for how long? What’s to prevent the Board from putting it back on the table once the scrutiny of the IANA transition has passed? And to reinforce how temporary this really is, look at what Crocker said –
    “So it’s — I think it’s in everyone’s interest, GAC’s interest, Board’s interest, and the entire community’s interest, to put this on hold and come back and revisit this in a larger context, and that’s our plan.”
    Putting it on hold and it’s off the table sound very similar. Sort of like a pause as opposed to complete abandonment. Why else would they want to come back and revisit except for waiting for the climate to change.
    Whenever Chehadé is asked about the 120 out clause on the Affirmation of Commitments his answer is “We have no plans” to terminate it. Having no plans and saying you will not are two very different things. Do they have plans in a post transition world?
    Maybe I’m splitting words here – but then again that’s exactly Fadi does on a regular basis.

Add Your Comment