[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Tue Dec 23 05:18:41 UTC 2014

Thanks Samantha,

Just adding a link to the resource for everyone to access easily :
DOC version : 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accountability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1419299658000&api=v2 

PDF version : 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accountability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1419299658000&api=v2 

Mathieu

Le 23/12/2014 02:57, Samantha Eisner a écrit :
> 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

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