A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology (1) ICANN Seeks Input on Improving Transparency and Accountability (2) Preliminary Recommendations Focus on Transparency (3) Reform Process Must Not Be Rushed ______________________________________________ (1) ICANN Seeks Input on Improving Openness and Accountability Last month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asked the Internet community for input on how it could build greater transparency and accountability into its decision-making processes. CDT was among several groups that filed preliminary comments with ICANN. ICANN manages the global domain name system (DNS) under a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Government. In September, the Department of Commerce announced that it had extended its MOU with ICANN. As part of that extension, ICANN and the Department agreed to a new Joint Project Agreement intended to help develop the structures and procedures necessary to continue the transition of the DNS to full private-sector oversight. The long-term goal of the Agreement is that ICANN will eventually operate independently of any governmental control or oversight. One of the most significant and recurring criticisms about ICANN since its inception has been that the organization has failed to operate in a transparent, accountable manner. Too much of the process by which ICANN arrives at decisions remains inscrutable to outsiders and participants alike, even though its "bottom-up" coordination process does represent a range of Internet stakeholders and the organization has consistently held open public meetings. In comments to the Commerce Department earlier this year, CDT highlighted some of the key concerns: "Equally troubling is that ICANN has made little effort and even less progress toward improving the transparency of its decision-making processes. Too much deliberation on important issues still takes place behind closed doors and on private phone calls. ICANN's non-appointed, full-time staff is still perceived as wielding too much influence in setting ICANN policy. Absent real representation, this lack of transparency has dealt a serious blow to ICANN's efforts to establish a truly bottom-up coordination structure. Most people outside the ICANN structure and even some that are ostensibly participating in the "bottom-up coordination" remain perplexed as to how ICANN reaches its decisions and which stakeholder groups maintain the real influence with decision makers." It was a promising sign, therefore, when the Commerce Department and ICANN identified strengthening transparency and accountability as a top priority in the Joint Project Agreement. Equally promising was that ICANN wasted little time initiating a procedure to develop "management operating principles" to support greater openness and transparency. This is a vital process and one that has potential -- if properly executed -- to greatly bolster ICANN's global legitimacy and set the DNS on a path toward full-fledged nongovernmental oversight. ICANN-Commerce Joint Project Agreement http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ ICANNJPA_09292006.htm ICANN request for public comments http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16oct06.htm ______________________________________________ (2) Preliminary Recommendations Focus on Transparency In order to craft long-term, workable solutions to increase transparency and accountability in the ICANN process, a comprehensive examination of ICANN's existing structures will be needed. In preliminary comments to ICANN, CDT suggested the possibility of empanelling a multi-stakeholder body to study the problems and propose solutions to the ICANN board. While that process will take time, there are some areas where ICANN can make immediate improvements. In submitted comments, CDT identified some of these areas. The first, and most obvious step in addressing the transparency/accountability issues is for all of the entities officially involved in the ICANN decision-making process -- from constituency committees, to supporting organizations, all the way up to the board itself -- to examine their procedures for disclosing information to the public. Where feasible, meetings should be made public, and at a minimum, the public should have access to major documents and the minutes of key meetings. The ICANN Board itself should hold no secret meetings, particularly when addressing DNS policy. There may be some wholly internal decisions that ICANN should be permitted to conduct outside of strict transparency requirements, but in general, those requirements should be designed to shed as much daylight as possible on ICANN's activities. For decisions that affect the DNS, all deliberations should be public. As part of that process, ICANN must take a hard look at the role its full-time, non-appointed staff plays in that process. Although not an official part of the bottom-up structure, the staff has historically held great sway over the decision-making process. CDT suggests the staff's role must either be minimized or officially acknowledged, and thus subjected to the same transparency requirements that apply to other entities within ICANN. CDT also recommended that ICANN not limit itself in drawing from existing models for improving transparency and accountability. Although ICANN's nongovernmental status has been one of its greatest assets as a management body, the organization's unique authority over infrastructure that is a lynchpin of global communication and commerce gives it government-like powers in this space. As such, ICANN may want to look to the best practices of governments, rather than those of other corporations, as it seeks to build a model that fosters greater transparency. For instance, one excellent resource for ICANN could be the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act, which establishes rules and timelines for government agencies to follow when making policy. Some of those rules would not make sense for ICANN, but other could be lifted directly from the statute. Were ICANN, for instance, to establish a rule subjecting all major policy decisions to a 60-day notice and comment period, the quality and legitimacy of the decision-making process would be greatly enhanced. CDT Preliminary Comments to ICANN http://www.cdt.org/standards/20061101icanncomments.pdf ______________________________________________ (3) Reform Process Must Not Be Rushed ICANN has undertaken a vital process in drafting of transparency and accountability "management operating principles," and should be duly commended. Making this a priority is essential to allowing ICANN to proceed to the next stage in its evolution. Still, one key concern has already arisen at this early stage in the process: timing. ICANN solicited comments from the public on October 16 and requested that they be submitted on October 31, despite the fact that many leaders in the Internet governance space were attending the first-ever global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens during that two-week period. In its first announcement, ICANN intimated that it was seeking to resolve the issue at its December board meeting in Sao Paulo. To suggest that the public would be able to submit meaningful guidance for fixing one of ICANN's oldest problems on a two-week deadline, and that ICANN would be able to implement those solutions less than two months later, led many in the Internet community to question whether ICANN had a clear understanding of the scope of the challenge facing it. After considerable public outcry at the artificially short timeframe, ICANN issued a notice clarifying that it was seeking only "preliminary" comments by October 31, and announcing that it would plan to implement policy changes at its meeting in Lisbon next March. Although ICANN should be applauded for responding to public concerns, even a March 2007 deadline to implement solutions to the problem would not appear to allow nearly enough time to address the problem in a comprehensive manner. ICANN has begun an important process by addressing the deep-seated issues surrounding its own transparency and accountability. It is vital that ICANN devote the time, resources and attention needed to see that process through to a satisfactory conclusion. _______________________________________________ Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at http://www.cdt.org/. This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2006/20 Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of dmcguire@cdt.org Policy Post 12.20 Copyright 2006 Center for Democracy and Technology -- To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at: http://www.cdt.org/join/ If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at: http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe yourself and then sign up again or contact: mclark@cdt.org -- Michael Clark, Grassroots Webmaster mclark@cdt.org PGP Key available on keyservers Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ voice: 202-637-9800 fax: 202-637-0968 ================== HURIDOCS-Tech listserv ===================== Send mail intended for the list to < >. Archives of the list can be found at: http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/maillist.php
[Reply to this message] [Start a new topic] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index] [List Home Page] [HREA Home Page]