[independent review] [WP2] Independent Review

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez]

RE: Weber & Gunnarson

I think that the proposal is bigger (and more expensive) than the problem we have to deal with.

I personally prefer to consider independent (only) mechanisms, instead of an independent & outside mechanism
The idea of a two tier corporate oversight system like we know from Europe and floated by Roelof Meijer, where an
(NomCom elected) Executive Board can review action&inaction by Staff, and
(An AC/SO -member based-) Supervisory Board can review Executive Board Decisions
If we don’t like the results, the community can recall the Supervisory Board Representatives, the Supervisory board can recall the Board members, and the community gets a shot at the NomCom……... 

The credentials of the panelist is well established and does need to be changed. Just the Board has to be split into two separate appellate bodies just for the purpose of the mechanisms
It would fully internalise the review and redress process, making it faster, cheaper and easier to make it BINDING.
Faster to implement as it does not require more than the regulation of the process.
May destroy peace between the different categories of present Board members though….


On the overall organisational level of DNS governance, I think the solution by Weber and Gunnarson is a very interesting indeed. But goes well beyond the IANA transition.


Best regards

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg at isoc-cr.org
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8335 2487 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA






> On Mar 13, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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:
> 
> 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.  
> 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 <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
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-independentreview/attachments/20150315/1d867b94/attachment-0001.html>