14,923
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − From the days of ICANN’s infancy, a high degree of accountability was set in place by contractual relationship between ICANN and the United States government. The renewal process of the IANA functions contract has historically served as a backstop to ICANN accountability. The impending relinquishment of this role by the US government, created the opportunity and the necessity to examine the efficacy of existing accountability mechanisms. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps]</ref>+ + − + + + − Line 41:
Line 43: − +
no edit summary
'''ICANN Accountability''' became a primary focal point of the [[ICANN]] community shortly after the [[NTIA]] announced its intent to transition the stewardship of the [[IANA]] functions to the global multistakeholder community. ICANN, already bestowed with the IANA functions contract and coordination of the [[DNS]], was asked to kick-start a mutistakeholder process aimed at developing a proposal for the transition. During the early stages of this process, the community raised concern over the outlook of ICANN’s accountability following the transition. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps]</ref>
'''ICANN Accountability''' refers to ICANN's commitment to maintain and improve mechanisms for public input, responsibility, and transparency so that ICANN’s decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community. Toward this aim, ICANN relies on a quantitative report of accountability indicators to demonstrate progress toward [[ICANN Governance]] objectives, as outlined in the organization's strategic and operating plans. [[ICANN Bylaws]] have also established four mechanisms for reviewing and reconsidering ICANN actions and decisions: [[Empowered Community]], [[Reconsideration]], [[IRP|Independent Review]], and an [[Ombudsman]].
==History==
Accountability, along with transparency, became a primary focal point of the [[ICANN]] community shortly after the [[NTIA]] announced its intent to transition the stewardship of the [[IANA]] functions to the global multistakeholder community. ICANN, already bestowed with the IANA functions contract and coordination of the [[DNS]], was asked to kick-start a multistakeholder process aimed at developing a proposal for the transition. During the early stages of this process, the community raised concern over the outlook of ICANN’s accountability following the transition. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps]</ref>
In late 2014 the need for Accountability evaluation gave way to the creation of the CCWG-Accountability (CCWG), a cross-community working group created by [[SO]]s and [[AC]]s to determine how the current mechanisms in place could be strengthened to compensate for the absence of the US Government. The CCWG immediately began working on the developing proposed reforms to the accountability mechanisms currently in place, publishing its First Draft Proposal in May 2015. <ref>[https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10-09-ICANN-accty-chrono.pdf Chronology of Recent ICANN Accountability milestones]</ref>
From the days of ICANN’s infancy, a high degree of accountability was set in place by a contractual relationship between ICANN and the United States government. The renewal process of the IANA functions contract has historically served as a backstop to ICANN accountability. The impending relinquishment of this role by the US government, created the opportunity and the necessity to examine the efficacy of existing accountability mechanisms. <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps]</ref>
In late 2014 the need for an Accountability evaluation gave way to the creation of the CCWG-Accountability (CCWG), a cross-community working group created by [[SO]]s and [[AC]]s to determine how the current mechanisms in place could be strengthened to compensate for the absence of the US Government. The CCWG immediately began working on the developing proposed reforms to the accountability mechanisms currently in place, publishing its First Draft Proposal in May 2015. <ref>[https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10-09-ICANN-accty-chrono.pdf Chronology of Recent ICANN Accountability milestones]</ref>
Enhancing ICANN Accountability is inherently intertwined with the IANA Stewardship Transition. In fact, there may not be any specific topic surrounding the transition that carries more weight than the outcome of the process for Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
Enhancing ICANN Accountability is inherently intertwined with the IANA Stewardship Transition. In fact, there may not be any specific topic surrounding the transition that carries more weight than the outcome of the process for Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
==CCWG-Accountability==
==CCWG-Accountability==
The CCWG-Accountability was developed in response to a community that did not believe that ICANN’s Board’s proposal adequately met the needs of the global multistakeholder community. The accountability process that was originally designed by ICANN received unfavorable public comments, resulting a revised proposal. After the revised version, suggesting a two-tier working group, once again received a negative response during the public comment period, ICANN stakeholders submitted a joint rejection letter to the ICANN Board demanding a community-driven approach. <ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/pdfggcThDbfOp.pdf Stakeholders Joint Letter]</ref>
The CCWG-Accountability was developed in response to a community that did not believe that ICANN’s Board’s proposal adequately met the needs of the global multistakeholder community. The accountability process that was originally designed by ICANN received unfavorable public comments, resulting a revised proposal. After the revised version, suggesting a two-tier working group, once again received a negative response during the public comment period, ICANN stakeholders submitted a joint rejection letter to the ICANN Board demanding a community-driven approach. <ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/pdfggcThDbfOp.pdf Stakeholders Joint Letter]</ref>
The accountability elements outlined above will be supported through:
The accountability elements outlined above will be supported through:
* Additions to the ICANN Bylaws to create an Empowered Community that is based on a simple legal vehicle that will act on the instructions of ICANN stakeholder groups to exercise the Community Powers. The Empowered Community is granted the status of a Designator (a recognized role in law) and has the standing to enforce the Community Powers if needed.
* Additions to the ICANN Bylaws to create an [[Empowered Community]] that is based on a simple legal vehicle that will act on the instructions of ICANN stakeholder groups to exercise the Community Powers. The Empowered Community is granted the status of a Designator (a recognized role in law) and has the standing to enforce the Community Powers if needed.
* Core elements of ICANN's governing documents (the Articles and Bylaws) being categorized as Fundamental Bylaws that can only be changed with an agreement between the ICANN community and the ICANN Board.
* Core elements of ICANN's governing documents (the Articles and Bylaws) being categorized as Fundamental Bylaws that can only be changed with an agreement between the ICANN community and the ICANN Board.