[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest

Wed Dec 17 19:41:06 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Thank you very much for all contributions

I understand your anxiety, your perplexity and your fear to touch this very
sensitive issue.

I encourage you all that you need to tackle the  issue matter  how
difficult and controversial it would be.

We must clearly mention the following

What is the description of the term accountability in a concise, precise
and realistic / pragmatic matter within the frame work of international law?

We need to clearly and specifically mention what are the Legal Framework
which would be applicable to the transitioned function? ,no doubt it should
not be Californian Law as we do not wish to be at the mercy of Californian
Judges

We need to clearly and specifically mention what is the accountability
environment that we are talking about?

Who is accountable to whom and on what?

 What are the mechanism (s) which should be duly put in place to implement
that accountability?

Who are the members of that mechanism?

How multistakeholders, including Governments should act according to their
role and responsibilities?
Apart from governments representation whose legitimacy are enshrined with
their credential form Their respective Governments (participation
Credentials) what are the legitimacy of other multistakeholder ? .No doubt
the notion of someone speaking on behalf of herself or himself is totally
illegitimate and unacceptable

What are the partitioning in representation and footing between and of the
four informally recognized categories of multistakeholders?

Governments

Civil Society

Private Sector

Technical Community and Academic

How the legitimacy of each group together with their accreditation should
examine and ensured? ,

Who define and approve the terms and conditions and scope of accountability?

What are the criteria to determine whether or not those terms, conditions
and scope have been implemented?

Who are policy making entities?

Who are the policy implementing entities?

What is the policy in question?

What is the relation between the current A o C in force and the envisaged
accountability?

What is the future of ICANN BY LAWS?

Who can amend that?

How can it be amended?

Does the accountability terms and condition form part of Bylaw:

Why should it not be renamed to something else such as Convention, Charter,
and Constitution and so on?

Should the current structure of ICANN be retained?

If not, what would be the revised structure of ICANN?

What would be the role of NTIA after transition?

Should it be given the authority to continue its legacy on some taks such
as contract with Verisign?

There are many questions to be answered.

Regards

Kavouss

2014-12-17 17:53 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:
>
> On 2014-12-17 16:07, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bruce, Steve.
>>
>> I've read the rest of the thread and think it goes down a little bit
>> of a rabbit hole, but that's OK (maybe it means the same one won't
>> appear later?).
>>
>> For me the primary concern with a non-defined use of the term "public
>> interest" is that it gives license to the person using it to advance
>> beyond the ICANN remit of technical coordination of the DNS and other
>> Internet identifiers, into all sorts of other things. Alternatively,
>> it can be used to try and dismiss proposed policy or practice that
>> make sense to the operational communities.
>>
>> On that basis I have a degree of comfort with Steve's post. If we are
>> clear that ICANN serves the global public interest by serving the
>> operational communities and coordinating among and between names,
>> numbers and protocols, then other questions get a bit easier to
>> answer.
>>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree, and I think Steve's post points the way forward
> on defining what we want to hold ICANN accountable for doing.
>
> I would also apply the same reasoning to the comments going on a parallel
> thread
> on "principles of international public law".
>
> Certainly I would regard it as being in the public interest that ICANN
> should discharge its functions properly, and in accordance with generally
> accepted principles of law. I would be very wary, however, of linking
> those concepts in a way that pointed to ICANN's functions being bent
> towards
> promoting the multitude of objectives and outcomes that might be said to
> be a matter of public interest, or called for by principles of
> international
> public law.
>
> So if we are to refer to these concepts, I think it is very important
> *how* we refer to them. We should be very careful not to create a sense
> that the narrow scope of ICANN's responsibilities for DNS is supplemented
> by a broader ambition to use the DNS to pursue a general and unbounded set
> of policies "in the public interest", or to accept responsibility for
> achieving
> the goals set by the wide range of instruments and measures that make up
> international public law.
>
> Malcolm.
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141217/6bbbd964/attachment.html>