[CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on impressions from Meeting Notes.

Sat Mar 14 13:51:25 UTC 2015

Hi Rahul,

Kindly find inline

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 14 Mar 2015 13:45, "Rahul Sharma" <wisdom.stoic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Seun. Generally, For-Profit Private sector organizations are
accountable to shareholders. ICANN doesn't have shareholders, hence its
Board is accountable to none.
>
SO: ICANN is not a For-Profit private organisation and yes most For-Profit
private organisations are accountable to their share holders(especially for
public limited liability)

> Can you please share more details on the organizations that do not have
shareholders but whose Board is accountable to external community?
>
SO: I don't think I mentioned "external community" in my mail. I said I
know private organisations that are accountable to those it serves (which
is the organisation's community). Example of that is the RIR.

>
That would be a good model for the group to study. Also when you say Board
accountable to the community they serve, how are they legally accountable
to the community?
>

SO: Yes they are legally accountable, especially if you would consider an
organisation bylaw to be a legal document. kindly refer to my comment above.

> I agree when you say that "Anything external to an organisation (the
community and board) should only be used as a tool to resolve any possible
dispute", but for that to be exercised, a provision needs to be put in
place that gives such power to the external community.
>
SO:
Nope, i don't think the provision should give power to the external
community but it should give power to the community to make use of external
tools when required(not the other way round). Example of that is using an
independent appeal panel to resolve a particular issue.

> I would also disagree when you say that "Until now, ICANN has not had the
opportunity to focus on building strong accountability mechanism within
it's community, due the distractions of dancing to the external tune of
accountability." - it has been 17 years since its inception. I do not see
any reason why cannot there be parallel processes run to study aspects of
both internal and external accountability.
>
SO:
Kindly note that my use of ICANN here includes both the community and
board. There has been effort in the past to get ICANN more accountable but
none of such can be compared to what we are experiencing right now. It is
the first time we are having accountability become a perquisite to
transition which is an indication that approach to implementation of
outcome of this WG will be different from that of the past. For the first
time, we have a process whose outcome would be beyond being mere
recommendation to the board (as it's done in the past). Hence the reason
why we have a more focused gaze on this process. I don't know how much of
board involvement happened at development stage of accountability
initiatives in the past, but I think this particular one is getting double
of whatever measure of attention they gave in the past.

>
Am also not sure if formal exercise has ever been undertaken to study
aspects of external accountability for ICANN - if there has been, would be
glad to learn more details on it.
>
SO: It depends on what external mean here as some would consider the NTIA
oversight to be an external accountability. Are you then suggesting the
possibility of having something similar going forward?

Cheers!
>
> On 14 March 2015 at 17:20, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rahul,
>>
>> I know quite a number of private sector organisation whose board are
held accountable. More importantly, they are accountable to the community
they serve. Anything external to an organisation (the community and board)
should only be used as a tool to resolve any possible dispute between both
sides. Until now, ICANN has not had the opportunity to focus on building
strong accountability mechanism within it's community, due the distractions
of dancing to the external tune of accountability. The mechanism that is
built by the community and adhered to by both side of the community will
provide a more sustainable, practical and effective accountability.
>>
>> That is what I think needs to be ensured in the process and I can say
things seems to be moving in the right direction.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2015 12:15, "Rahul Sharma" <wisdom.stoic at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Carrie to answer your question, ICANN Board needs to have external
accountability, based on pre-defined parameters. ICANN is a not-for-profit
private organization based out of California. According to applicable laws,
I understand that Board of private sector organizations are accountable to
none. But ICANN is not just any private sector organization - it's a trans
national institution meant to selflessly serve entire globe, and thorough
checks and balances need to be in place to determine whether job it's doing
is right, coz its actions impact global community.
>>>
>>> How can this be provisioned is the real question that we need to find
answers to.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Rahul Sharma
>>>
>>> On 13 March 2015 at 18:40, Carrie <carriedev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> May I ask the elephant in the room question....
>>>>
>>>> You have no control over the ICANN board at this time here and now.
What makes you believe that once ICANN leaves America and the cast if
characters become new unknown even nefarious players that you will have
control then?
>>>>
>>>> You must put in a law enforcement quotient even for Interpol to have
standing. A lot of money is involved. Even now there is no accountability
on monies spent, so law enforcement and local/foreign criminal law must be
cited in these papers
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely
>>>> Carrie Devorah
>>>> Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.  I hope that it is possible for the CCWG-A to design of
these changes in a fail fool proof manner so as to:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  Ensure that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that
Positive (will leave this term undefined) Board Members are not recalled
>>>>> 2.  There is a balance within the Community which would prevent its
power over ICANN's management are exercised with fair reason and
proportionately and NEVER abused.
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.   Limitations would be placed on ICANN excessively going beyond
its scope, but continues to coordinate Names and Numbers as also continue
to work on policy areas that can't be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is adequate time to design and implement these changes with
the required safeguards, it would indeed be desirable to have these changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All
>>>>>> I agree with Mathew
>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 03:57, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The discussions as to what is in WS1 and WS2 has been going for
some time and considerable work has been undertaken on WS1 issues (further
separated into WP1 and 2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think there was ever agreement that WS1 (pre-transition)
issues should be minimal.  Most of the community has been asking for some
pretty substantial accountbailty issues to be addressed or committed to
prior to the transition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2015 9:00 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This comes as something out of the blue in the sense that the CCWG
has been actively discussing a wide range of Work Stream 1 proposals that
have been clearly signalled in writing for weeks and weeks now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have some concrete proposals about the sorts of items
before this CCWG and its Working Parties that you believe *should* be part
of Work Stream 1 (pre-transition)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would be very helpful input, as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the CCWG at its meeting in Istanbul will need to resolve
its pitch to the community as to what should be in WS1 and WS2....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jordan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12 March 2015 at 13:54, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th
March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based
on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points
discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised
here as a point to consider by the whole group:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notes:  2. Brief Discussion:
>>>>>>>>>> WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but
needs to take place post transition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1.
>>>>>>>>>> Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors.
>>>>>>>>>> Community empowerment over ICANN’s management.
>>>>>>>>>> Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the
rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is
minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing
basis post transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the
formation of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such
changes to the Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to
recall members of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even
Community empowerment over ICANN management.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment
such changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer
blue print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise
to think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included
pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the
Accountability framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At
best, WS 1 could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post
transition, after more elaborate thinking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A better world through a better Internet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150314/b971c242/attachment.html>