2/5: The forgotten criterion: credibility of community accountability
[This is the second of a series of five comments on Community Priority Evaluation] Accountability and transparency are of the pillars ICANN is expected to rest upon. It is all the more astonishing that somehow this criterion was forgotten when it comes to community-based TLDs. Whether or not a given application deserves de “community-based” designation is not so much a question of formal “delineation” of the community or measures to ensure that community “members” alone can register domains. Most communities do not really have “members”, but rather, stakeholders with various kinds of bona fide interests in the community. An established representative community institution is one that offers community stakeholders and transparent governance model with adequate guarantees of accountability. In a scoring system is used as currently proposed, then the largest number of points awarded should be based on the credibility of the TLD governance model with respect accountability and transparency to community stakeholders This element is connected to another key concern. The word “subsidiarity” is little used in ICANN, but the overload of ICANN’s policy-making clearly shows that it should be used much more. ICANN should not deal with policy-making that can be handled in a more decentralized fashion. In the case of sponsored TLDs, the Appendix S of each contract defined the delegation of policy-making authority to the TLD Sponsoring Organization. This is necessary not just for the TLDs, it is necessary for ICANN. ICANN cannot possibly handle all the policy-making. Community-based TLDs are precisely the kind where policy-making, policy oversight and policy enforcement must be delegated to the TLD’s own governance model. ICANN must therefore evaluate the viability of delegating authority as the key criterion for recognizing a community-based TLD. Werner Staub CORE Internet Council of Registrars |