[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Dec 23 22:51:41 UTC 2014
Dear Samantha
Tks for information.
I could not find your doc. on the wiki WG1
May you pls either direct me to the area that I could find that last doc.
or send me the doc.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-12-23 15:19 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>:
> Dear all,
>
> As discussed, I suggest the table to be expanded with at least one column
> „final say” or „stops the buck” or something, that states where the final
> decision lies.
> I bet that in most cases we will find that this is the ICANN Board. Which
> is not a flaw in the system, but -as I am sure you are all aware- just the
> logic result of the present (common) governance structure of the
> corporation, whereby board members have a fiduciary duty and ultimately
> (only) serve the best interests of the corporation.
>
> As long as the best interests of ICANN the corporation and the „public
> interest” are aligned (or are so in the opinion of the board) all is
> probably well. If they are not, if the are not in the opinion of the
> board, or if the board misinterprets the public interests and/or the
> corporations interests, problems arise.
>
> It surely has not always been the case, but in my opinion the board and
> CEO have done pretty well over the last years in finding the right balance
> (or alignment) between corporate and public/community interests.
> No guarantee that that will remain the case indefinitely however,
> especially if there’s no longer the NTIA/USG to subtly threaten with
> corrective measures...
>
> As far as I understand it, we mean by „enhanced accountability” that
> ultimately, when the *stuff* hits the fan, the public interest will be
> the decisive interest and NOT the corporation's.
>
> I do not think that can be demanded from the board.
> I agree that we should consider multiple solutions to this challenge.
> One of which might be assigning the task and the authority required for
> it, to an external or semi-external structure, through the bylaws of that
> corporation. In such a situation, the members of that structure should
> obviously not be appointed by (the board of) the corporation. But by those
> representing the public interest.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof Meijer
>
>
> SIDN
> | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
> NETHERLANDS
> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23-12-14 06:18, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
> >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-%20Accoun
> >tability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=141
> >9299658000&api=v2
> >
> >PDF version :
> >
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accoun
> >tability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=141
> >9299658000&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
> >*****************************
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20141223/e207db39/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ccwg-accountability1
mailing list