[CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue

Mark Carvell mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
Mon Mar 23 10:56:56 UTC 2015


Alan

Quick question: does early GAC engagement in PDPs, i.e. joint GAC-GNSO
working which will start to happen soon, help here in heading off conflict
with the priorities of contracted parties ?

Mark

On 20 March 2015 at 20:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> This is NOT an issue related to the IANA transition, but in my mind is a
> serious accountability issue.
>
> The issue is not a new one, but has recently been raised again in the
> context of the GNSO WG on Policy and Implementation. One of the outcomes of
> that WG (should it be approved) is that ALL issues that impact
> stakeholders, regardless of when the issue arises in the
> policy-implementation continuum, must be referred to the GNSO and subject
> to a MS decision-making process. At the present, some stakeholders believe
> that some similar decisions have been made unilaterally by staff or the
> Board.
>
> The potential accountability issue is whether the GNSO is capable of
> addressing issues where the Public Interest may be at odds with the desired
> of the Contracted Parties, and if not, how do we fix it.
>
> The problem is that contracted parties have a very strong vested interest
> to attempt to ensure outcomes that support their needs and can invest
> significant resources in ensuring satisfactory outcomes. That is a
> completely natural position for them to take. Those who are defending the
> public interest tend to have few such resources. This can impact WG
> outcomes. Moreover, ultimately, contracted parties, working together, have
> an effective veto within the GNSO (although clearly not one they would
> prefer to use).
>
> Past situations have resulted in either watered-down results which did not
> come anywhere near meeting the public interest needs in the view of
> non-contracted parties, or have resulted in deadlock.
>
> Although no one is advocating the Board taking unilateral decisions in
> such cases, it DOES have the ability to decide that the Public Interest is
> of paramount import in any specific case.
>
> Please note that this is not an accusation against specific contracted
> parties or their representatives. But it does reflect a scenario that MIGHT
> arise and where ICANN must be able to take decisions that are in the public
> interest.
>
> This is very closely related to the issue that we are always reminded of -
> ICANN Directors must look at the Public Interest EVEN IF a decision is
> counter to the wishes of the AC/SO that appointed them. How do we ensure
> that the Policy Processes below the Board are as accountable?
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Mark Carvell
Global Internet Governance Policy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk
tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/9bd87067/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list