[IANAtransition] On Enhancing ICANN Accountability

Michel S. Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Fri May 30 23:00:36 UTC 2014

At 21:19 30/05/2014, Tamer Rizk wrote:

>@Michel, Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority 
>over a geographic area.

This looks an outdated Westphalian concept to me. Sovereignty means 
absolute authority. Not bound by foreign laws

>Since the geographic area you are hypothesizing is unclear in your 
>statement, I can only clarify that the implied intention of the 
>document is to reiterate the necessity for all interests to ensure a 
>future of good Internet governance through separate, interdependent 
>organizations, each with the power to hold the other accountable.

This is what is called multilateral equilibrium. Subject to 
international laws. At least for those accepting an UN environment.

>If I understand your concluding remark correctly, then yes, I would 
>agree that DNS policy may be constrained to impartiality through the 
>careful demarcation of RZM and IANA functions between said organizations.

Sorry, but all what I mean is that the sovereign ICANN DNS police is 
starting to upset (or "abuse" :-)) an increasing number of people. 
This is probably one of the motivation for an Internet User 
declaration of independence from ICANN and ICE.

I do not know if you noticed that digital cyberspace is increasingly 
considered as a fifth battle area. IMHO people should rather take 
advantage from Hugo de Groot.


>Michel S. Gauthier wrote:
>>All this has a simple name. What is discussed is "ICANN sovereignty".
>>Why not to call things by their name.
>>Sovereignty means potestas against multitude's potentia and external
>>As long as there is no ICANN-Cyber-Command this is waffling. Let first
>>discuss the DNS police abuses.
>>M S G
>>At 03:29 30/05/2014, Tamer Rizk wrote:
>>>PDF Attached
>>>Tamer Rizk wrote:
>>>>In its overview on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, ICANN's Senior
>>>>Advisor to the President on Strategy graciously offers a window of
>>>>"opportunity for public dialogue and community feedback" to be heard
>>>>during an "accountability discussion that will take place entirely
>>>>within the ICANN community". The overview sets forth a number of
>>>>questions to the public that were designed by ICANN to provide input to
>>>>the ICANN Accountability Working Group, in order for ICANN to craft the
>>>>framework for its Accountability to the Public. Primarily, ICANN would
>>>>like to consider the issues that the public identifies as being core to
>>>>strengthening such accountability.
>>>>In essence, Accountability is the answerability, liability, and
>>>>expectation of account-giving, in response to, and remediation of,
>>>>organizational misconduct. Thus, the issue underscoring reasonable and
>>>>growing Public concern is that the ethical development of a framework
>>>>for accountability should endeavor to correspond to those whom which an
>>>>Organization should be answerable, as opposed to the Organization
>>>>itself. It should address how they may, independent of the Organization,
>>>>hold the Organization liable to remediation, and it should reflect that
>>>>the Organization truly believes that account-giving is forthcoming.
>>>>In ethics, and in governance, the core issue necessitating
>>>>accountability is the preservation of social equity within a diverse
>>>>power spectrum comprised of individual citizens, fledgling businesses,
>>>>governments varying in size and nature, special interests and larger
>>>>corporations. Throughout history nations have struggled with preventing
>>>>failures in ability to maintain the fairly impartial administration of
>>>>accountability from evolving into anarchy or tyranny at either extreme.
>>>>Today, modern governments largely curtail a breakdown in systemic
>>>>accountability through the separation of mutually dependent structures,
>>>>each empowered with mechanisms to hold the other accountable, bolstered
>>>>by processes to facilitate public recourse.
>>>>In the current trajectory towards Internet Governance and the Framework
>>>>for accountability, when ICANN finally determines how it should be
>>>>accountable to the greater global community comprising individuals,
>>>>governments and businesses that must increasingly depend on the
>>>>impartial provision of IANA functions far into the future, the Public
>>>>may hope to continue to find opportunities to address ICANN, via well
>>>>established procedures, such as the submission of complaints to ICANN's
>>>>"Office of the Ombudsman" in accordance with the bylaws instated by
>>>>ICANN. It should be noted that the common definition of Ombudsman is "a
>>>>government official appointed to receive and investigate complaints
>>>>against abuses or capricious acts of its officials". Individual,
>>>>Corporate and National Citizens of the Internet may feel fortunate that
>>>>such an Office exists at present. To this effect, the burden is on these
>>>>very Citizens to collaboratively ensure that Accountability is
>>>>adequately and enduringly developed to preserve the equity of the
>>>>structures governing the Internet of tomorrow.
>>>>ianatransition mailing list
>>>>ianatransition at icann.org
>>>ianatransition mailing list
>>>ianatransition at icann.org

More information about the ianatransition mailing list