[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Mon Dec 15 21:30:48 UTC 2014

Dear Bruce,
Dear All,
I have noted that many of us still have not properly realized the scope and
sphere of accountability
See below

what can be designated the original or   core «sense of accountability is
that associated with the process of being called to “account” to some
authority for one’s action Such accountability has a number of features:

It is external, it involves social interactions, and exchange and it
implies rights of asserting in those calling for an account are asserting
rights of superior authority in those calling for an “account «over those
who are accountable including the rights of demand answers and to raw
consequences ,possibly, including the imposition of sanctions

Accountability is described as involving justification of an action’s
performance vis a vis others, the assessment of judgment if that
performance against certain standards and possible imposition of
consequences if the actor fails to live up to applicable standards.

Accountability implies that how legislator can scrutinizing the actions of
public servants and make them accountable for wrong doing or mistake

I wish to comment on your statement that ICANN may reject a Recommendation
if it is against public interest.

What are the criteria based on which ICANN  could decide that a given
Recommendation is against public interest?
Which entity  decided on these criteria ?

What are the legal basis that few designated individual could claim that
they are guardian of the public interest?

Which mechanism is in place to ensure that such judgement is not wrong doing

Dear Bruce, dear all,

There are many unanswered questions.

Moreover, terms, conditions and sphere of accountabilty are binding clauses
and not recommendations which has optional character

Hear from you tomorrow at 11,00-13.00 UTC  .

KAVOUSS

 .

2014-12-15 18:52 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:
>
> Dear Bruce,
>
> Thank you for this helpful note.
>
> Could you please point us to or share with us some thoughts regarding what
> the ICANN Board sees as "the public interest"?
>
> Many thanks
> Jordan
>
> On 15 December 2014 at 12:23, Bruce Tonkin <
> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Kavouss,
>>
>> >>  In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they
>> already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board
>> Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the
>> accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the
>> Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA
>> .However, should the Board  has any comment, they may send it separately to
>> NTIA
>> In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case.
>>
>> From my understanding there are two separate but related activities.
>>
>> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is developing a
>> proposal to send to NTIA for the IANA transition.    This proposal could
>> incorporate the output of this Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>> ICANN Accountability.   The ICANN Board's liaison on the ICG - Kuo Wei Wu -
>> has conveyed to that group that the Board will send the report onto the
>> NTIA without making any changes.   The Board will send an accompanying
>> letter which will either endorse the report, or it will express concerns
>> that will already have been shared with the ICG through the various
>> opportunities for public comment and dialogue.
>>
>> This Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is
>> developing recommendations for improvements of ICANN's accountability.
>>  These improvements can be made irrespective of whether the NTIA chooses to
>> change its role with respect to the IANA function.   The Board of ICANN is
>> committed to making continuous improvements in its accountability
>> mechanisms.    The ICANN bylaws are clear on how the Board will approve
>> policy recommendations from the supporting organisations (GNSO, ASO and
>> ccNSO), but there is no explicit material in the bylaws for how the Board
>> will process recommendations directly from a cross-community working
>> group.   The Board resolution passed in Los Angeles (
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d)
>> was intended to set clear expectations for how the recommendations would be
>> treated.        The assumption is that the Board will approve the
>> recommendations from this group, and implement those recommendations.   If
>> the Board feels that it would not be in the public interest to implement a
>> particular recommendation it has set out a process for working with the
>> Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability to resolve
>> the matter.   The Board will not make any changes to a recommendation or
>> report from this group.  It is up to the CCWG to make or change any of its
>> recommendations.
>>
>> Separately, I expect that the NTIA could make the ICANN Board's approval
>> and implementation of improved accountability mechanisms proposed by this
>> group as a pre-condition to any transition.
>>
>> I hope that helps.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing
>> ICANN Accountability
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141215/a731e7e9/attachment.html>