[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Tue Dec 16 20:04:23 UTC 2014

Samantha, Colleagues,

That is indeed what I understand from the discussion. You could also add 
a 3) is it review, redress or check & balance (see Netmundial definition 
of Accountability).

Best
Mathieu

Le 16/12/2014 13:04, Samantha Eisner a écrit :
> Colleagues,
>
> Listening to the discussion, I propose think that one of the new refined
> tasks that we could undertake would be, for each mechanism that we’ve
> identified on the inventory, first try to answer the questions of:
>
> 1) To whom does this mechanism seek to make ICANN accountable; and
> 2) For what
>
> This could be a starting point for parsing through the next wave of issues
> that we are agreeing to take on.
>
> Best,
>
> Sam
>
> On 12/15/14, 9:23 AM, "David W. Maher" <dmaher at pir.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Samantha.
>> On the subject of contractual sources of accountability, it should be
>> noted that the proposed withdrawal of NTIA from IANA functions will remove
>> NTIA as a source of accountability enforcement.
>> I propose that the Sub Group look for other contractual sources and at the
>> same time explore the possibility of broadening the scope of
>> accountability enforceable by contract.
>> For example, the registries and registrars could enter into contracts with
>> ICANN covering the IANA functions in addition to the following:
>> 1. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that are not supported by a demonstrated consensus among
>> affected parties.
>> 2. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that do not relate to issues the uniform resolution of
>> which is necessary to assure sound operation of the domain name system.
>> 3. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third
>> parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required
>> contract terms) that relate to online content or to online behavior that
>> does not threaten the sound operation of the domain name system?
>> 4. ICANN could agree that any claim that it has not complied with the
>> previous three obligations may be brought by any adversely affected party
>> before an independent review panel that can issue decisions that are
>> binding on ICANN.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> David W. Maher
>> Senior Vice President  Law & Policy
>> Public Interest Registry
>> 312 375 4849
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/14 9:30 AM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************