[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Tue Dec 23 01:57:52 UTC 2014

Hi - 

I’ve done a first attempt (which is by no means comprehensive) of our
assigned task and uploaded to the wiki.  I think we’d benefit from seeing
what other detail we’d like in there, so I put this out to start the
conversation.

Best, 

Sam

On 12/16/14, 1:43 PM, "David W. Maher" <dmaher at pir.org> wrote:

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