[independent review] FW: Independent Review

Sun Mar 15 13:09:14 UTC 2015

Dear Becky,

The paper is extremely interesting, and echoes many of our discussions 
within the CCWG. I think it would be worth circulating and adding to the 
"documentation" section of our wiki for future reference.

regarding the "constitutional court", I would suggest we give it a try 
through our agreed template to see how it would look like. I find the 
idea very promising.

I wonder whether I'd be comfortable with setting the appointment of 
members in the hands of the President and CEO in the case of Icann, 
since he (or she) is not elected or appointed by the community. But I 
think the "confirmation" procedure would be very useful.

Best
Mathieu

Le 14/03/2015 17:56, Robin Gross a écrit :
> Interesting paper that could provide a basic framework for much of our 
> work or at least some possible constructions to consider applying. 
>  Thanks for forwarding it!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Mar 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, David W. Maher wrote:
>
>> Becky:
>> I agree with most of the approach in the Weber/Gunnarson article. In 
>> particular, I agree that their conception of a constitution closely 
>> parallels our Mission Statement and Core Values. Would the proposed 
>> constitution be an amendment to the ICANN charter?
>> 2 further thoughts:
>>
>>  1. I am not convinced that a new Review Panel is necessarily better
>>     than a strengthening of the existing IRP, so that its mission is
>>     broader than that provided by the current bylaws, and its
>>     decisions are binding.
>>  2. It is not clear how the proposed members of the corporation would
>>     be selected; the idea is a good one, but the selection process
>>     would be full of complex political issues.
>>
>> David
>> David W. Maher
>> Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
>> Public Interest Registry
>> 312 375 4849
>>
>>
>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org 
>> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
>> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:27 PM
>> To: "wp2-independentreview at icann.org 
>> <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>" 
>> <wp2-independentreview at icann.org 
>> <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>>, "wp2 at icann.org 
>> <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>" <wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [independent review] FW: Independent Review
>>
>> /Dear all, /
>> /Becky's email was sent to the bounce list, so I'm resending on her 
>> behalf. /
>> /--Grace/
>>
>> -----
>>
>> http://stlr.org/download/volumes/volume14/WeberGunnarson.pdf
>>
>> I’ve provided a link, above, to an article written by Rolf Weber and 
>> Shawn Gunnarson in 2012 entitled “A Constitutional Solution for 
>> Internet Governance.”  The authors call for the following reforms for 
>> ICANN:
>>
>>  1. *A written charter:*  A charter or constitution that restricts
>>     ICANN to actions that the community has already approved,
>>     distributes authority through law and requires it to be exercised
>>     through or under law; separates power appropriately; enumerates
>>     and constrains ICANN’s powers; and establishes fundamental rights
>>     for those governed by ICANN – this corresponds, I think, to the
>>     Mission Statement and Core Values [Compact/Commitment, whatever]
>>     that we are working on.
>>  2. Establish an independent constitutional court (the authors call
>>     it a Review Panel) with narrow powers to review ICANN actions and
>>     to reverse those actions if they are inconsistent with the
>>     written charter.  The authors propose that the panel consist of 5
>>     highly regarded legal experts who:
>>       *  Have no relationship with ICANN that creates a conflict of
>>         interest
>>       * Serve for a fixed term that cannot be shortened absent
>>         agreement by the community that the position is being used
>>         for personal gain
>>       * Receive a guaranteed salary that cannot be reduced during the
>>         term.
>>
>> With respect to selecting the members of the independent judiciary, 
>> they propose that the CEO would appoint the members subject to 
>>  approval by ICANN’s “members.”  This is similar to the way Supreme 
>> Court justices are selected in the US (nominated by the president and 
>> confirmed by the Senate) and I suspect in may other countries as well.
>>
>> Questions –
>>
>>   * What do you think of this approach?
>>   * Would/should a “constitutional court” of this type need to be in
>>     addition to a reformed independent review process conducted by
>>     arbitrators drawn from a standing panel?
>>   * What credentials would the panelists need to have to be appointed?
>>   * Should there be some sort of process for vetting nominees?  For
>>     example, the American Bar Association has a standing panel that
>>     reviews and rates judicial nominees.
>>     http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary.html
>>   * Anything else?
>>
>> _
>> _
>> _
>> _
>> _
>> _
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / 
>> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / 
>> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp2-independentreview mailing list
>> wp2-independentreview at icann.org <mailto:wp2-independentreview at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-independentreview
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp2-independentreview mailing list
> wp2-independentreview at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2-independentreview

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-independentreview/attachments/20150315/fc4dbe2c/attachment.html>