[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Norbert Bollow]

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> At 13:42 5/13/2007  +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's
> > > performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up sufficiently and
> > > made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to consideration
> > > within ICANN.
> >
> >That is not good enough.  There also needs to be accountability in the
> >consideration itself, not only in the route from comment to
> >consideration.
> 
> Norbert,
> if you can phrase this positively, that could be a contribution.

Well, since "there needs to be accountability in the consideration" is
grammatically a positive statement, I'll assume that you mean the
other meaning of the word "positive", which is "clearly or definitively
stated".

Since stating this point clearly and definitively is going to benefit
not only ICANN (if ICANN choses to adopt this principle) but also all
other internet governance processes, I'll take the time to try to do so.

Here's a first draft:


  Principle of Accountability in Consideration of Public Comments

  All governance organisations should perceive themselves as agents
  acting in the interest of and on behalf of the general public.  As
  the principal, the public is therefore not only entitled to being
  able to make comments, thereby providing input for consideration
  by the governance organisation, but in addition the public is also
  entitled to being able to verify that the comments are considered
  with appropriate diligence, and that all decisions are made with
  reasonable discretion in consideration of the public interest as
  the primary objective.

  When a governance organisation fails to fulfil reasonable
  expectations in this regard, the members of the public must be able
  to remove the people who are at fault for this failure from their
  positions of influence in the governance organisation. (There is a
  choice of several effective mechanisms by means of which such
  accountability can be implemented, including public elections of
  board members, or legally binding public commitments which can be
  enforced in a court of law.)


> Well... let's put it this way: with all the work ICANN has been doing 
> since Karl is not on the board, it has actually addressed if not all, 
> then at least most, or some, of his concerns.

The fundamental question is whether ICANN primarily serves the public
interest, or some special interests.

Judging ICANN by its actions, it looks to me like ICANN primarily
serves some special interests.

As I see it, that is the fundamental problem with ICANN.

Implementing just some of Karl's good suggestions but not enough
to change the fundamental nature of ICANN, so that ICANN becomes an
organisation that actually, genuinely and competently, seeks to serve
the public interest, isn't going to impress me.  As long as not enough
changes are made to achieve this profound effect, there is little
significant effect on the actual decisions made by ICANN. Whether
"most, or some, of his concerns" have been addressed is irrelevant.
The question is whether _enough_ of his concerns have been addressed
to change the fundamental nature of ICANN.  Karl says that isn't the
case, and that is my impression also.

Gruss,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                          http://Norbert.ch
Präsident der Swiss Internet User Group SIUG              http://SIUG.ch
Die SIUG engagiert sich für Privatsphäre und Mitgestaltungsmöglichkeiten
in der Informationsgesellschaft.
____________________________________________________________
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