Let me turn next to the current situation at ICANN. ICANN represents a practical working model of the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. When I signed the Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN in 2009, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to the ICANN model and its mission to preserve a single, global interoperable Internet that supports the free flow of information and global electronic commerce.
The Affirmation was historic because it established mechanisms and timelines for the multistakeholder review of ICANN’s execution of its core tasks. What had once been a unique role for the U.S. government was expanded to include the participation of the international community through review teams. This model of enhanced global cooperation on Internet public policy issues offers a constructive example for the continuing international debates about Internet governance.
In 2010, I served on the first of these review teams which focused on evaluating ICANN’s accountability and transparency. Our team, which included representatives from the governments of China and Egypt as well as representatives from South America, Europe and Australia, made a series of recommendations to the board, all of which were adopted. ICANN will soon be reporting out on the implementation of these recommendations and a second accountability and review team will convene next January to evaluate ICANN’s performance in integrating the recommendations into the culture of the organization.
NTIA’s commitment to expanding participation in Internet governance was tested earlier this year with respect to the IANA functions contract. Last year, in anticipation of the expiration of the IANA functions contract, NTIA undertook two consultations of stakeholders, both domestic and international, on how to best enhance the performance of the functions. Based on input received from stakeholders around the world, we added new requirements, including the need for a robust conflict of interest policy, heightened respect for local country laws and a series of provisions to increase transparency and accountability. Earlier this year, we took the unprecedented action of cancelling the initial request for proposals (RFP) because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. We then reissued the RFP and I am hopeful that whatever responses were submitted more clearly satisfy the needs of the global Internet community.
It should be clear from my comments that while NTIA continues to be a strong supporter of ICANN’s multistakeholder approach, we do not shy away from offering constructive criticism and speaking bluntly about the challenges facing ICANN and the improvements it is needs to make. In the end it only makes for a stronger ICANN. In that regard, a lot has been said in the last seven months here in Washington, DC regarding ICANN’s new generic top-level domain name (gTLD) program. While we have defended the process used to reach the decisions regarding the program, we have listened and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about the potential for unintended consequences of the expansion. The details of the 1,930 applications were revealed two days ago and NTIA, along with our interagency partners, are actively reviewing the list of strings and the publicly available information associated with each application. Now that the facts are in front of us, we will meet with stakeholders in July to discuss, among other things, if additional protections are warranted at the second level.
In addition, we continue to believe it is critical that ICANN complete three work streams that will further enhance the tools available to law enforcement and consumer protection officials as the new gTLD program unfolds. The first of these is a strengthened Registrar Accreditation Agreement that takes into account the proposals of law enforcement agencies as endorsed by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Second is the need for ICANN to address a range of deficiencies in the implementation of WHOIS policy. Third is the need for ICANN to fully staff and enhance ICANN’s contract compliance division. Among other things, ICANN needs to take steps to centralize and automate the complaint process as well as make it more transparent by the end of the third quarter 2012.
I want to emphasize that as we raise these concerns with ICANN, we do so respecting the multistakeholder processes of that organization. We bring our concerns to the GAC and discuss these issues with other governments to formulate formal advice to the ICANN board as set out in its bylaws. We have worked hard in ICANN to strengthen the role governments have, as one group of stakeholders at ICANN, to demonstrate to governments that they can be heard and their issues dealt with in this multistakeholder process. I believe increasing the meaningful engagement of governments in multistakeholder organizations such as ICANN is one of the strongest arguments we have, and indeed is a necessary precondition, to opposing the views of some nations to have international intergovernmental bodies replace multistakeholder organizations in important areas of Internet governance.
</quote>