[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

[David W. Maher]

I agree
David
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849 






On 12/16/14 2:04 PM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

>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
>*****************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
>Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1