[CCWG-Accountability] FW: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4

[Samuel Rugy]

New accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed?

1.Vertical accountability model-ordinarily we have been putting in place
horizontal accountability mechanisms which are ideal to ensure ICAAN will
be transparent, efficient and effective. At this juncture I believe we need
further this and to engage the general public through open public forms,
online and offline surveys and questionnaires or through voting system to
assess and generate clear statistical data of their diverse views.

Compile the data and draw a clear graphical picture of their opinions, mark
the changing trends and reactions over a given period of time and generate
an acceptable mathematical tool which would be acceptable to facilitate
ICAAN decision making with all the checks and balances taken care of.

2. Other mechanism would to introduce Consumer protection policies which
could be used by as a watch dog comitee to check for any violation
acceptable laws.

3. Introduction of Competition protection regulation framework to ensure
ICAAN and Its predecessor or their affiliate bodies will maintain a fair
and conducive environment for all to operate and come up with an acceptable
dispute resolution mechanism.

On 22 December 2014 at 16:04, Carl Schonander <cschonander at siia.net> wrote:

> Steve et all:
>
> First, of course like others I need to thank Steve for compiling this
> chart.  So thanks!  I know this is a lot of work.
>
> I agree with the divisions into WS1 and WS2.  I also tend to agree with
> Paul that we ought to be able (and should) to reduce the number of items on
> this chart, but this is probably not the time to do that.  To me, the
> critical thing to be able to do is to be able to recall one or more Board
> members, review every decision, and approve the budget.  It seems to me
> that the definition of the "community" (the ultimate oversight authority)
> is probably fine, but I wonder how this "community" will arrive at
> decisions.  Again, something not to be decided at this time.
>
> There seems to be a choice ("alt.") between the community's ability to
> review every decision or refer decisions to an independent review panel.
> If we do have to make a choice, even though SIIA suggested the independent
> review panel option, SIIA can go with the community review if that is what
> most members of the BC prefer.
>
> With respect to changing the standard for affirmation reviews, SIIA
> strongly opposes changing the standard from "in the public interest."  The
> public interest is broader than human rights and Internet freedoms.  The
> public interest includes, for instance, the framework needed to make the
> Internet a commercially viable platform for all legitimate businesses -
> that is not really a human right or Internet Freedom.
>
> I notice the SIIA proposal to severely limit the ICANN's ability to deny a
> disclosure request has not been placed in WS1 or WS2.  Maybe that is
> because there are a lot of good transparency proposals in the chart.  If
> people feel this proposal is redundant, it can go.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> I wish everybody Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!
>
> Carl
>
> PS: Steve if this mail needs to go to others - please feel free to forward.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Carl Schonander
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:33 PM
> To: CSchonander at gmail.com
> Subject: Fwd: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability
> mechanisms,     draft 4
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:
> sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, "Thomas Rickert" <
> rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, "Mathieu Weill" <
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
> Cc: "ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>"
> <ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>>
> Subject: [Area 2] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms,
> draft 4
>
> To: members of CCWG and Work Area 2,
>
> After our last call on 16-Dec, the chairs tasked the entire CCWG with this
> action:
> 3. ACTION review the inventory list compiled by WA2 and suggest either
> additions to or deletions from the list.
>
> With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest
> version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The
> inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date
> through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG
> colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check
> whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or
> delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory
> prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December.
>
> The chairs also recommended next steps for our Work Area 2, after our
> inventory is complete. (see bottom of this email)
>
> As rapporteur for Work Area 2, I reviewed emails since 16-Dec (see email
> archives<
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/2014-December/date.html>
> for Work Area 2 and for entire CCWG<
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2014-December/date.html>).
> Most of the correspondence was about Public Interest and International Law,
> but I found notes relevant to Work Area 2 from Kavouss Arasteh, Alain
> Bidron, Google, Paul Rosenzweig, and Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez.
>
> For your review, I attach an updated drafted with these changes:
> - added a footnote to page 1 citing how Member oversight is enabled by
> California Law and by ICANN Articles of incorporation, and noted that
> ICANN’s present bylaws would have to be changed to recognize Members.
>
> - I did not delete any items at this point, but for items where opposition
> has been noted, you will see under the Support column, [opposition noted]
>
> -  Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the
> rationale for work stream designations.  These appear in the headers of the
> table and are shown below:
> Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams:  Work Stream 1 is
> designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place
> [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs.  All other consensus
> items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1
> adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN
> management and board.
>
> 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN
> corporation.   Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since
> community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these
> Bylaws changes.
>
> 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN
> corporation.   Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the
> Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are
> empowered in WS1 (above).
>
> 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these
> are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or
> management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above).  For example,
> a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by
> ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the
> change.  [I folded the Transparency items into this category]
>
> Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s call.
> —
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
> +1.202.420.7482
>
>
> On 12/18/14, 3:10 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:
> rickert at anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>> wrote:
>
> B. WA 2
>
> With regard to work area 2, everyone is encouraged to review the latest
> version of the inventory that was developed by the WA 2 sub-group. The
> inventory is intended to capture all ideas / suggestions made to date
> through previous public comment periods and/or (new) suggestions from CCWG
> colleagues. As agreed during the last call we suggest that you now check
> whether the list is complete, and if not suggest to include other items or
> delete some on the list. We ask you to share any additions to the inventory
> prior to our next meeting on Tuesday 23 December.
>
> It is our intention that after completing this inventory, the CCWG will,
> as next steps, consider the following:
>
> *   Assess and determine which items of the inventory belong in stream 1
> (mechanisms that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of
> the IANA Stewardship Transition in light of the changing historical
> contractual relationship with the US Government) or stream 2
> (accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and
> full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition).
> Note that the charter of the CCWG includes a definitions and guiding
> questions questions, which are expected to serve as the basis for this
> assessment and determination (see below). In order to make this assessment
> the CCWG should also consider the meaning of ‘must be in place’ and
> ‘committed to’ as included in the definition of work stream 1. (Note: Steve
> already included a proposed categorisation in the latest draft version of
> the inventory).
> *   Provide a rationale for categorising an item as part of work stream 1
> or 2, taking into account the definitions and guiding questions in the CCWG
> charter.
>
> Only after agreement has been reached on the categorisation of items and
> rationale, we can proceed to focus on the items in work stream 1 to a)
> develop further details for each of the proposed accountability mechanisms
> and b) review each accountability mechanism proposed in work stream 1 and
> c) assess whether there is CCWG support for including it as part of the
> CCWG recommendations.
>
> As a reminder, the following list of non-exhaustive questions were
> included in the CCWG charter to aid the CCWG in its deliberations:
>
> Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 1 include, but
> are not limited to:
>
> *    What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions
> Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential
> accountability concerns could this cause?
> *   What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or
> committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition?
>    *    How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
> *   What enhancements or reforms must be committed to before the NTIA
> Stewardship Transition, but could be implemented after.
>    *   If the implementation of enhancements or reforms are to be
> deferred, how can the community be assured they will be implemented?
> *    How will these enhancements or reforms be stress-tested?
>
> Suggested questions to be considered as part of Work Stream 2 include, but
> are not limited to:
>
> *   What enhancements or reforms can be addressed after the NTIA
> Stewardship Transition?
> *   If there are enhancements or reforms that can be addressed after NTIA
> disengages, what new or existing processes ensure they will be addressed
> and implemented?
>    *   How will these enhancement or reforms be stress-tested?
>
> Suggested questions to be considered as part of both Work Stream 1 and 2
> include, but are not limited to:
>
> *   What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the
> multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship
> role?
> *   What enhancements or reforms are needed to ICANN’s existing
> accountability mechanisms?
> *   What new accountability reforms or mechanisms are needed?
> *   If accountability enhancements and reforms are made through changes to
> ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, how can the community be
> assured that those changes will be permanent, or not subject to unilateral
> amendment by the ICANN Board at a later date?
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 


Best Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141230/257fcf82/attachment.html>