[CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI)
David Post
david.g.post at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 22:00:19 UTC 2016
At 12:03 PM 1/5/2016, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>At last, something everyone can agree on. The question then is
>HOW? How do we set up an accountability system that confines ICANN
>to this function.
>Our chosen method (which I continue to support) is to a) narrowly
>define the mission in writing; and b) allow people outside the
>corporation to invoke a
>neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to
>account when/if it goes beyond the mission assigned.
I guess I'd ask the question this way: Even assuming that we agree
with the method we've chosen (i.e., to narrowly define the mission,
and to allow people outside the corporation to invoke a
neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to
account), do we think that the recommendations as currently
formulated implement that approach in a way that is likely to be
effective? And if not, why not?
Personally, I have some concerns about that. First, I worry that the
mission has become watered-down and so tangled up with qualifying
language that it will not serve as an effective brake on ICANN's
actions, and that the central role of "consensus" in ICANN's
decision-making has been diminished to the point where it too won't
be an enforceable constraint; and second, I am not yet convinced that
the neutral arbitral mechanism, the important details of which have
yet to be fleshed out, will, much like the current IRP, be
unwilling/unable to enforce meaningful constraints on ICANN's actions.
David
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 9:52 AM
>To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was
>Re: GPI)
>
>At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >SNIP
> >So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means,
> >does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN
> >should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It
> >should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that
> >distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not
> >embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities --
> >lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people
> >to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the
> >Internet) can't get.
>
>
>+1
>
>Very well put.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>*******************************
>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
>Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music
>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
>http://www.davidpost.com
>*******************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications
etc. http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list