[CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority

Fri Dec 19 20:53:54 UTC 2014

Mathiew
I am happy that my earlier comments on accountabilty are now more or less
appeared in your three questions.
Yes we need to answer these questions
Who is accountable to whom and on what
ICANN SHALL NOT BE ACCOUNTABLE TO ITSELF on the accountability that
submitted to ICANN in a series of ATRT Recommendations
We need to embark on these questions as soon as possioble
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-19 20:05 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> It is NOT outside the remit.  In the Area 2 working group discussion, I
> just wrote the following:
>
>
>
> ·        Supermajority to change fee structure.  This is currently WS2.
> I am surprised that the community thinks so.  To my mind the greatest risk
> in the ICANN transition is not the risk to free expression.  Rather it is
> the creation of an unregulated monopoly controlling a scarce resource (the
> domain names).  I would have thought that the community would be deeply
> concerned about the creation of excess profits that ICANN could devote to
> other purposes (e.g. the proposal to fund broadband expansion) that would
> allow it to, in effect, buy support and create independence.  For me, this
> is a *WS0* requirement or at a minimum a WS1 part of the bylaw revision.
>
>
>
> “WS0” is my way of identifying absolutely vital issues that are at the
> highest level of importance – and I think that “taming” the ability  of
> ICANN to achieve monopoly profits is one of the 3 or 4 most important
> objectives of the CCWG.  I proposed a super majority requirement to raise
> fees – but I am equally intrigued by your idea of a separate commercial
> entity (presumably subject to contractual oblilgations and law suits).
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>
> 509 C St. NE
>
> Washington, DC 20002
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Buckingham [mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 19, 2014 11:53 AM
> *To:* 'Roelof Meijer'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent
> cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> May I start a new thread and suggest a complete restructuring/ break up of
> ICANN, with a new corporate, tax paying entity, established, accountable
> for all revenue generating activity, particularly from its management,
> facilitation and  its on going responsibility, accountability, reporting
>  of the whole gTLD  programme, processes, procedures.
>
>
>
> Are you aware that ICANN’s ( currently a 501 Californian not for profit -
> where no tax is payable) latest audited 2013 financial statements show a
>  “surplus” of $83M ( with a further $32.4 M development cost write back )
> on $359M revenue received from 1930 applicants.  It has also in addition,
> subsequently  received
> https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults
> with another 100+ contention sets  ( potentially )facing a last resort
> ICANN auction, where ICANN takes all the proceeds.
>
>
>
> Perhaps this outside the CCWG -Accountability remit.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Phil Buckingham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Roelof
> Meijer
> *Sent:* 19 December 2014 15:26
> *To:* Steve DelBianco; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent
> cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
>
>
> Deal all,
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>
> "Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an effective check on the
> ICANN board's power is to create statutory members of ICANN with extensive
> authority over the board. This authority could include removing board
> members, overturning board decisions, etc. The statutory members would
> likely include the chairs of the various ICANN "supporting organizations"
> and "advisory committees," such as the Address Supporting Organization
> (ASO) responsible for IP address policy and the Country Code Name
> Supporting Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing the country code
> top-level domains. To ensure that the statutory members do not hold too
> much sway, their actions could be limited to situations where there is a
> supermajority (i.e., consensus). „
>
>
>
> The possibility of introducing such a structure is certainly not limited
> to organizations operating under California State (or US Federal for that
> matter) Law.
>
> If the members of such a structure would be the (elected) chairs of the
> SO’s and AC’s and of a few other (e.g. IETF, IAB and –dare I suggest it-
> the SG of the ITU) to make it truly/fully multi-stakeholder, it
> could greatly enhance ICANN’s accountability. As the structure itself would
> be very accountable.
>
>
>
> I would think that (indeed on the condition of a supermajority) this
> structure then could be given the power to (escalation with increase in
> number):
>
>    1. On the basis of „too much noise from the community”, tell ICANN to
>    redo a particular process;
>    2. If the above does not solve the situation, call for an independent
>    review of the issue/process;
>    3. If the situation meets certain criteria, send the board (or part
>    thereof) away;
>    4. If the situation meets even stricter criteria, transfer ICANN’s
>    role and/or the IANA function to another organization (Chris
>    Disspain’s „nuclear option”)
>
> The nice thing about option 4 is that having it, will make it’s actual use
> unnecessary and will make options 1 to 3 a given. By rattling the sable, as
> the NTIA occasionally did, for sure..
>
>
>
> Only a very rough sketch, lots of develish details to be worked out. But
> in my opinion worth reflecting on. Not because it, as Kavouss
> suggests, „[is limited] to merely existing practice and model”. As it is
> not. But because it builds onto what had been realized over the years and
> works pretty well most of the time. And because it might be part of a
> solution to both issues: the IANA stewardship transition and the
> enhancement of ICANN’s accountability.
>
>
>
> And, now that I am having a go at it anyway, if the above would be
> implemented, another increase in ICANN’s accountability could be realized
> some time down the line. By replacing ICANN’s present board by one of which
> none of the members are elected from an SO or AC , but all members are
> selected on the basis of their personal skills and expertise.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Roelof A. Meijer
>
> CEO
>
>
>
> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
> NETHERLANDS
> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> *Date: *woensdag 17 december 2014 17:20
> *To: *Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent
> cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
>
>
> This pertains to our discussion yesterday about a permanent,
> cross-community ‘Membership’ group to hold ICANN board and management
> accountable to the community.  It was described this way in draft3
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418610739000&api=v2>
> for work area 2:
>
>
>
> Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent cross-community representative
> structure (all ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to:
>
> Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>
> Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute (option to use independent
> panel)
>
> Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>
> Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>
> Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>
>
>
> One of the groups proposing
> <http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/> a
> community of stakeholders as ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>
> in a Washington paper today.  Daniel Castro of the Information Technology
> & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>
>
>
> California state law applies since ICANN is a registered nonprofit
> corporation in the state. As such, California law allows nonprofit
> organizations to have statutory members. Gunnarson suggests that one way to
> provide an effective check on the ICANN board's power is to create
> statutory members of ICANN with extensive authority over the board. This
> authority could include removing board members, overturning board
> decisions, etc. The statutory members would likely include the chairs of
> the various ICANN "supporting organizations" and "advisory committees,"
> such as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) responsible for IP
> address policy and the Country Code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO)
> responsible for managing the country code top-level domains. To ensure that
> the statutory members do not hold too much sway, their actions could be
> limited to situations where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>
>
>
> We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to enable this modification
> to ICANN’s bylaws in conformance with California law.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve DelBianco
>
> Executive Director
>
> NetChoice
>
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
>
> +1.202.420.7482
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141219/836ce2cc/attachment.html>