[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Karl Auerbach]

David Goldstein wrote:

Thanks for the breath of fresh air and a real question.

> Preposterous is the first thought that comes from this idea, that of
> audio recording all board meetings and making them available to the
> public. How many companies and organisations around the world do
> this? I can only imagine the number that do it for all meetings would
> be negligible.

In this post Sarbanes-Oxley era, it may be more than we think.  However, 
you do ask a good question, which I would paraphrase as "how much 
openness to we need to require of institutions of internet governance?"

My answer is based not on what would occur should an instition of 
internet governance be staffed by angels but rather on what could occur 
if it were staffed and run by people, a rather more fallible species.

Institutions of internet governance are institutions into which the 
collective "we" are going to be investing a degree of authority.  We use 
the word "governance" to express the fact that this kind of delegation 
of power is being made.

I think we all agree that that authority needs to be exercised with 
intelligence and discretion and for the benefit of the intended 
beneficiaries.

But how does the collective "we" obtain confidence that the authority is 
exercised in the desired way and not used to enhance other interests?

The answer is that "we" need to be able to know how decisions are being 
made, on what information, with what assumptions, with what criteria, 
and with what weights.  Otherwise we can not perceive whether the 
governance body is acting with wisdom or folly.

Moreover, "we" need to know who is making those decisions, else 
corrective measures can not be applied.

If we do not create, at the outset, clear standards of public discourse 
on the part of decision makers then we run a great risk that the body of 
governance will slam the doors, shutter the windows, and raise the 
drawbridge.   We have all, I trust, observed how easily even the 
slightest exception to open and transparent behavior can, and often will 
be, utilized.

Sometimes we like to say that private companies are not required to 
operate in public.  That's true.  But in those cases there is a very 
clear path of accountability - the shareholders can kick the board 
members out at the next election or, in some cases, recall them.  And 
given the degree of closure, it is often necessary to remove all of them 
rather than retain the good and eject only the ill.

In institutions of public governance, particularly those on the ICANN 
model, there is no clear path of accountability.  ICANN explicitly tried 
to distance itself from the idea that it could be held accountable by 
the community of internet users.  And with the ALAC and "nominating 
committee" a tremendous barrier has been placed between the public who 
is affected by ICANN and those who make ICANN's decisions.

In other words, right now the only bodies that has the authority to 
inquire into ICANN's behaviour and hold ICANN accountable is the 
California Attorney General and the California Secretary of State.

Is that a model we wish to adopt for internet governance?

Or would it be better to simply audio-record every meeting and make 
those recordings available to the public?

I would suggest that the level of discourse that you and I are having 
has already exceeded anything that has every occurred on the ICANN board 
on this question.

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance