[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Apr 2016 6:50 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> MM: Yes, we all know this well, Seun, but they COULD sign with anyone
else they want. So ICANN’s role here is contingent, not a permanent and
irrevocable part of its mandate. Therefore it should not be in part of its
Articles of Incorporation defining its purpose.
>
SO: At least for numbers, what ICANN does also exceeds just the IFO role as
it also approves/ratifies global policies et all. I think if they indeed
decides to sign with someone else in future, then the existing governing
documents will need to be updated one way or the other anyway so I don't
see it as a significant issue and so we should reflect the current status.
Perhaps I should also note that the specific wording about the section you
refer was indeed proposed and agreed to by the DUO. While I am not
suggesting that they cannot change their mind, I think going through that
discussions again could open up a lengthy process and could also
communicate the incompleteness of our proposal to NTIA.

> SO: Well it depends on what "public policy" mean in this context as I
think when we refer to community developed policies within ICANN, the word
public is not part of it. So we say "global policies" this is how they are
called within the RIR community as well (better put, global numbers policy
or resource policy). I wonder who else makes binding public policies other
than government?
>
> MM: ICANN does, and the RIRs do. There is no operational distinction
between a “global policy” and a “global public policy.”
>
SO: The point is that they don't call the output public policy but kind-of
refer to the process to which the policy is developed as such.
Nevertheless,....

>
The question is who represents the global public? In multistakeholder
institutions, the public is represented directly by their participation in
the bottom up process, which includes governments. In governmental
institutions, the public is represented by national governments who claim
the exclusive right to speak for publics.

SO: ....I agree with the explanation above but your last sentence is what I
think may have been the intent of the section you referenced...i.e they
"claim"(using your word) to represent the public and utilises their
developed "public policies" to represent their community's interest.

Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160406/c506c213/attachment.html>