<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net" type="cite">
<div>
<div><snip><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely
open and transparent?</div>
<div>i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development
in this model actually</div>
<div>undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to
a set of principles and </div>
<div>then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is
there a need for only a </div>
<div>select community to participate in the oversight? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be
captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like
it to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open
scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive
processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN
is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight role is definitely necessary.</div><div>Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority? I believe that a large number</div><div>of institutions that claim to adhere to open and transparent principles of policy development</div><div>should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not certain that such oversight must be</div><div>inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have the capability with the Internet to </div><div>have institutions be held accountable for their claims of openness and transparency to a</div><div>very large number of parties at once, including and all interested governments, civil society</div><div>organizations, and other Internet technical coordination groups. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> We
need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to
exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive
authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of
NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No
body can work appropriately without such separation of power and
responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global
importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as,
more or less, it at present has. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Full agreement.<br><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA
function, which is with the US government at present. This function
cannot be exercised by an open participative process. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>"Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise" means and why it should </div><div>be commingled? </div><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional
processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never
constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed
in organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into
deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that
we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very
clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to
cast political or even substantive governance judgements. </div></blockquote><br></div><div>Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for actual open and transparent policy</div><div>making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the oversight role be limited to judging ICANN</div><div>on its compliance with its declared processes. </div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style></body></html>