Skip to main content

Co-Chairs Statement from CCWG-Accountability Meeting in San Juan

On 9 March 2018, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) held a face-to-face meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to further its discussions on Work Stream 2. Sixty-two members and participants attended in-person and remotely using the virtual meeting room.

As a part of Work Stream 1, the CCWG-Accountability defined areas where further accountability discussions needed to take place. These discussions, called Work Stream 2, have been underway since June 2016. The purpose of Work Stream 2 is to disseminate the new accountability principles into several key parts of ICANN's day-to-day operations and to develop a culture of accountability across the ICANN Community, Organization, and Board.

During the meeting the CCWG-Accountability:

  • Approved the second reading of the final recommendations on Diversity.
  • Approved the second reading of the final recommendations on Jurisdiction.
  • Approved the second reading of the final recommendations on the Office of the Ombudsman.
  • Approved the second reading of the final recommendations on Staff Accountability.
  • Approved recommending the establishment of a small implementation oversight team (IOT) consisting of the Co-Chairs and the rapporteurs for the eight sub-groups, to assist ICANN and the community to ensure the implementation plan preserves the spirit of the recommendations and provide any interpretation advice as required.
  • Committed to having the draft final WS2 report published for public consultation by the end of March 2018.
  • Confirmed its schedule of plenary meetings to ICANN 62.

With these approvals all sub-groups have submitted final recommendations for their topics as per the schedule agreed to in May 2017.

It is important to note that the IRP IOT was included as part of WS2 for administrative simplicity but is in fact independent of WS21. Current expectations are that the IRP IOT will continue beyond the scheduled completion date for WS2 of June 2018.

The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs recognize the outstanding dedication of its volunteers, and express gratitude to ICANN staff for their diligent and skilled support. For more information on the CCWG-Accountability, or to view meeting archives and draft documents, please refer to their dedicated wiki page.

About the CCWG-Accountability

The CCWG-Accountability was established in 2014 as a part of the IANA stewardship transition. The group's goal is to ensure that ICANN's accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of the IANA functions contract with the U.S. Government.

The group divided its work into two Work Streams:

  • Work Stream 1 was focused on identifying mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA stewardship transition.
  • Work Stream 2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA stewardship transition.

The CCWG-Accountability proposed 12 recommendations to enhance ICANN's accountability as a part of the IANA stewardship transition. The consensus Work Stream 1 proposal was approved and transmitted by the ICANN Board to the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration on 10 March 2016. On 1 October 2016, the IANA functions contract lapsed, and CCWG-Accountability's Work Stream 1 recommendations went into effect.

The CCWG-Accountability is comprised of 227 people, organized as members appointed by and accountable to Chartering Organizations; individual participants; one ICANN Board liaison; one ICANN staff representative; and one former ATRT member who serves as a liaison. The group also has over 130 mailing list observers.

The CCWG-Accountability is an open group. Anyone interested in the work of the CCWG-Accountability can join as a participant or observer. For more information about how to join the CCWG-Accountability, please send an email to

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Jordan Carter, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Thomas Rickert

1 WS2 was mandated by WS1 Recommendation 12, whereas the IRP IOT was mandated in WS1 Recommendation 7.


    Domain Name System
    Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as"""" is not an IDN."