[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-Accountability] Prior work on Accountability structures in 2012
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Mon Jan 12 14:53:36 UTC 2015
You’re right, Greg. There are abstract elements to accountability that apply across domains. My point was not to discourage anyone from reading the report but just to not confuse IANA and ICANN accountability.
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 11:15 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-Accountability] Prior work on Accountability structures in 2012
I think the report is actually quite instructive for the CWG. While the ASEP was examining current ICANN accountability structures, which largely cover "ICANN as policy maker and enforcer," much of the substance of the report deal with improving aspects of those structures that are not unique to that subject matter. Rather, they are issues of general applicability to any accountability structure. As such, they highlight a number of issues we would need to deal with, e.g., when fleshing out the IAP. As such, I would not discourage anyone in the CWG from looking at this report for what it's worth.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
Appreciate your recommendation of the report, but that report was focused on the accountability of ICANN as policy maker and enforcer – and as you have probably heard me say before, policy accountability and IANA functions accountability are two very different things. Let’s never get them blurred together or confused.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 11:18 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-Accountability] Prior work on Accountability structures in 2012
This may be of interest to our group as well.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Date: Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Prior work on Accountability structures in 2012
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
From the ATRT1 review, the Board created the Accountability Structures Expert panel (ASEP) to recommend improvements to the current accountability structures.
I have attached their final report from: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-26oct12-en.pdf from October 2012.
It may be of some use to this group.
Some points I picked out from their recommendations:
The Four Es:
• Enhancing effectiveness of structures
• Efficiency in process
• Allowing expeditious resolution
• Enhancing community’s ease of access to accountability structures
“The Board must always act with objectivity and fairness in the best interests of ICANN, but in doing so take account of the legitimate needs, interests and expectations of stakeholders material to the issue being decided. Staff must act in same manner."
Create stability through building of precedent
Where possible, reduce burden and costs to those accessing structures
Accountability structures should not preclude any party from filing suit against ICANN in court of competent jurisdiction
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship