“I don’t see how new gTLDs can be approved in Singapore if the GAC isn’t satisfied that its concerns have been fully addressed”.
So spoke Assistant Secretary for Commerce Lawrence Stickling in his keynote luncheon speech delivered at a Global Internet Governance workshop held at American University in Washington, DC on May 5th. (The quote is transcribed from our hastily scribbled notes and may not be exact, but certainly captures the essence of his position.)
That statement, echoing to some extent a call issued yesterday by members of the House IP Subcommittee that ICANN should delay new gTLD program approval until after its June meeting in Singapore, certainly raises the stakes in the escalating game of policy “chicken” that seems to be developing between ICANN and the U.S..
And, in another portion of his prepared remarks, Secretary Strickling indicated that the Department of Commerce (DOC) was still looking at the concept of “unbundling’ the separate functions now performed by ICANN under the present IANA root server contract, due to expire in September; stated that DOC lacked the statutory authority to transition the arrangement from a supply contract to a cooperative agreement as requested by ICANN – and, on the subject of using contract renewal as leverage to get ICANN to commit to specific steps for accountability and transparency, stated “we are seriously considering that and will invite further comment”. So, while the US terminated direct oversight of ICANN in 2009, it is certainly not hesitant to use its residual influence over the organization.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Secretary declared that “the Obama Administration is fully committed to the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance” and cited both ICANN and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as examples of its success. ICANN’s importance lay in its core technical coordination functions and its preservation of security and stability, but its functioning could be improved. DOC sees the two biggest challenges for the upcoming Singapore meeting as improving accountability and transparency, to be measured by whether the Board will “embrace” key recommendations, and in “addressing the collective concerns of governments”. The immediate governmental concern is new gTLDs and what the Guidebook development process means for the proper role of governments in ICANN. While commending ICANN for its recent responses to GAC concerns on new gTLDs, the Secretary said it’s unclear whether ICANN can complete the task in time for a scheduled June 20th vote on launching the program. One key remaining issue is closing the gap between the Board and GAC on the standard for a GAC consensus that a proposed new gTLD string should be rejected. As to how GAC satisfaction with the proposed Applicant Guidebook should be measured, he said the benchmark was resolving remaining differences in a manner that ensured collective governmental commitment to the ICANN model into the future.
Following his remarks, during a question-and-answer session, ICA asked the Secretary whether the Administration would take a firm position on whether the new gTLD vote should be delayed beyond Singapore. While sidestepping a direct response, the Secretary reiterated that “premature approval” could negatively impact governmental buy-in to the ICANN model and bolster those who seek to transfer ICANN functions to the ITU or another UN-affiliated entity.
Responding to another question on whether the U.S. position would in effect provide the GAC with a veto over ICANN policy, the Secretary clearly stated that the U.S. did not favor explicit veto authority – but added that, until recent months, many GAC members had the impression that “we’re not wanted here”.
Finally, when again questioned on a gTLD vote in Singapore, the Secretary noted that discussions between the Board and GAC were continuing and that the U.S. didn’t want that dialogue terminated “prematurely” by a predetermined voting date. He noted that there were still almost two months left to bridge their differences and that he hoped both parties would make that happen, and seemed to indicate that the GAC need not be satisfied on every last issue for a vote to be taken.
Coming one day after a contentious House hearing in which IP sector witnesses and Subcommittee members called on ICANN to delay a new gTLD vote past June, Secretary Stickling’s speech certainly raises the pressure on ICANN’s Board to accommodate the GAC on remaining issues in contention – especially when linked to renewal of the IANA contract (although, we must note, non-renewal would so cripple ICANN as to be a gift to those nations who want net governance shifted to the UN).
For our part, we have no quarrel with the notion that ICANN should pay serious attention to advice rendered by the GAC, so long as it is delivered in a clear and timely manner. However, we would clearly differentiate between advice delivered on matters that are primarily governmental concerns, such as law enforcement – as opposed to matters in which the GAC has effectively become a lobbyist for private interests, such as advancing “rights protections” that go far beyond anything discussed during a long and comprehensive multi-stakeholder process.
If the GAC must be satisfied on private sector disputes then ICANN stakeholders will start to question why they should expend the time and effort involved in participating in working groups, PDPs, public forums, and all the other mechanisms that make up the ICANN consensus-building process – when it would far more efficient to just lobby the Board and the GAC, if they are to be the ultimate decision makers regardless of community consensus.
In short, let’s not destroy the multi-stakeholder process in order to “save” it.