[CCWG-ACCT] New accountability issue

[Alan Greenberg]

This is NOT an issue related to the IANA transition, but in my mind 
is a serious accountability issue.

The issue is not a new one, but has recently been raised again in the 
context of the GNSO WG on Policy and Implementation. One of the 
outcomes of that WG (should it be approved) is that ALL issues that 
impact stakeholders, regardless of when the issue arises in the 
policy-implementation continuum, must be referred to the GNSO and 
subject to a MS decision-making process. At the present, some 
stakeholders believe that some similar decisions have been made 
unilaterally by staff or the Board.

The potential accountability issue is whether the GNSO is capable of 
addressing issues where the Public Interest may be at odds with the 
desired of the Contracted Parties, and if not, how do we fix it.

The problem is that contracted parties have a very strong vested 
interest to attempt to ensure outcomes that support their needs and 
can invest significant resources in ensuring satisfactory outcomes. 
That is a completely natural position for them to take. Those who are 
defending the public interest tend to have few such resources. This 
can impact WG outcomes. Moreover, ultimately, contracted parties, 
working together, have an effective veto within the GNSO (although 
clearly not one they would prefer to use).

Past situations have resulted in either watered-down results which 
did not come anywhere near meeting the public interest needs in the 
view of non-contracted parties, or have resulted in deadlock.

Although no one is advocating the Board taking unilateral decisions 
in such cases, it DOES have the ability to decide that the Public 
Interest is of paramount import in any specific case.

Please note that this is not an accusation against specific 
contracted parties or their representatives. But it does reflect a 
scenario that MIGHT arise and where ICANN must be able to take 
decisions that are in the public interest.

This is very closely related to the issue that we are always reminded 
of - ICANN Directors must look at the Public Interest EVEN IF a 
decision is counter to the wishes of the AC/SO that appointed them. 
How do we ensure that the Policy Processes below the Board are as accountable?

Alan