<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: #000000" color=#000000 size=2 face=Verdana>
<DIV>Perhaps another question to add to the below list is who and how would make a challenge that a policy failed in its directive or hurt more than it helped so as to bring about the use of the last question, being who would be responsible and how... Without a means to challenge and overturn, "responsibility" will have no teeth and the user no mechanism to protest effectively. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Karl E. Peters</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" webmail="1">
<DIV>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments<BR>From: Garth Graham <garth.graham@telus.net><BR>Date: Mon, June 01, 2009 11:45 am<BR>To: governance <governance@lists.cpsr.org><BR><BR>On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR><BR>> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can <BR>> whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would <BR>> just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already <BR>> converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the <BR>> missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but <BR>> lawful constraint.<BR><BR>Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future, <BR>and not specifically for the draft.<BR><BR>In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is <BR>another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability <BR>mechanism." In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an <BR>effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop <BR>a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet <BR>Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in <BR>challenging ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions. The <BR>purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our <BR>view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards. It <BR>could and should state:<BR>- who would benefit, and why<BR>- how they would benefit, immediately and in the future<BR>- who would bear the costs and risks, and why<BR>- what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future<BR>- who would answer publicly, for what, and when<BR><BR>For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see: <BR><a href="http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html">http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html</a><BR><BR>GG<BR><BR><BR>> On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR>>>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make <BR>>>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the <BR>>>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as <BR>>>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than <BR>>>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:<BR>>>> 1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches <BR>>>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining <BR>>>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)<BR>>>> 2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing <BR>>>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be <BR>>>> any better. (infinite recursion).<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts - <BR>>> not some oversight body. But it also begins before the fact of <BR>>> acting - with clear statements of intentions. Thus the standard <BR>>> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating <BR>>> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."<BR>>><BR>>> "For every important responsibility there is accountability. <BR>>> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully <BR>>> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the <BR>>> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act, <BR>>> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is <BR>>> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to <BR>>> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant <BR>>> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering <BR>>> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect <BR>>> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must <BR>>> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not <BR>>> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to <BR>>> the public. ... Holding to account also includes validating the <BR>>> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary <BR>>> principle. Validation of the answering means independent <BR>>> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who <BR>>> can competently assess it." Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide <BR>>> to Public Accountability. <a href="http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/" target=_blank mce_href="http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/">http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/</a> <BR>>> index.html<BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR><a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank mce_href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></span></body></html>