[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

[Samantha Eisner]

Hi all - 

I posted a new version of the document on the wiki page in clean and
redline form.  The proposed changes include:
1. To address Malcolm Hutty¹s edit regarding contractual sources of
accountability, I made a ³contract² heading and also listed Registry and
Registrar Contracts under there.
2. To address David¹s inclusion of SSAC recommendations as a source of
accountability, I incorporated a heading under Bylaws that accounted for
Advisory Committee inputs.  (Note that action is pending on ATRT2
recommendations regarding ICANN¹s obligations on considerate of advice
from ACs other than the GAC).  Because identifying accountability in terms
of advice did not then seem complete without reference to the policy
recommendations upon which that advice is often given, I referenced the
policy development/Board consideration of policy recommendations for each
of the SOs. 
3. Inserted summary listings of all ATRT recommendations (1 and 2)

In terms of background documentation, I modified the page to make a clear
delineation between the background info and the drafting work ongoing.  In
line with David¹s concern and Bruce¹s suggestion, I excerpted the
presentation I previously circulated, and posted only the part that deals
with the inventory effort, so as not to bring all the questions in at this
stage.

I also included an excerpt to the inventory effort undertaken by ICANN in
advance of the first postings on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sam



On 12/13/14, 4:01 PM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

>Hello Samantha,
>
>Is it possible to split this presentation from London into its two
>components?
>
>The first few slides list some of the accountability mechanisms available
>within the ICANN structure.   The ATRT2 review identified some
>improvements to make to these mechanisms.
>
>The slides from 11-28 are a general presentation about accountability
>from Professor Jan Aart Scholte, School of Global Studies, .University of
>Gothenburg.
>
>He lists 9  framing questions to consider when looking at accountability
>mechanisms:
>
>(1) What is accountability?
>
>	- processes whereby an actor answers to other actors for the impacts on
>them of its actions and omissions
>
>(2) with what components?
>
>	- transparency
>
>	- consultation
>
>	-  monitoring and evaluation
>
>	-  correction and redress
>
>
>(3) for what purpose?
>
>	- financial review; 'the accounts'
>
>	- performance measurement
>
>	- democratic participation/control
>
>	- moral probity; ecological integrity; peace; etc.
>
>
>(4) Accountability by whom?
>
>	- challenge of pinning down and specifying impact in the context of
>complex polycentric governance
>
>
>(5) for what?
>
>	- actual formal mandate
>
>	- desired mandate (content? spam? digital access?)
>
>
>(6) to whom?
>
>	- 'the public' of significantly affected people (but metaphysical,
>ecological?)
>	
>	- 'the public' not unitary, as different people are differently affected
>
>	-  constituencies (divisions within and overlaps between)
>
>
>(7) for whom?
>
>	- myth of a universal 'global community' with same interests and equal
>power
>
>	- skewed accountability on lines of age, caste, class, (dis)ability,
>faith, gender, geography, language, nationality, race, sexuality
>
>
>(8) via what channels?
>
>	- hegemonic veto
>
>	- intergovernmental multilateralism
>
>	- (global) political parties and parliaments
>
>	- multi-stakeholder arrangements
>
>	- civil society deliberation and mobilization
>
>	- judiciary (court, inspection panel, evaluation exercises, ombudsman)
>
>	- mass media
>
>
>(9) how accountably?
>
>	- 'When you point a finger, you need to do it with a clean hand'
>	
>	-  transparency, consultation, monitoring and redress of those who
>(claim to) speak for affected publics
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin