[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Garth Graham]

Perhaps to clarify?  I believe Milton Mueller is right to note the  
absence of external oversight, but not necessarily right in seeking  
some other external means to put a different leash on ICANN.  We are,  
after all, talking about governance of self-organizing systems, where  
the rules about changing the rules are internal to each of the  
members of the system.  In what I believe will be continuing absence  
of an agreement on a means of external constrain, legal or otherwise,  
I was pointing to a mechanism whereby members of the "system" could  
remind ICANN effectively of its responsibility to account.  The means  
to "challenge" internally exists and provides a basis for dialogue on  
future intentions.  And it is always a citizen's responsibility to  
remind a governing agency that it is failing to meet its  
responsibility, including its responsibility to account.

GG

On 1-Jun-09, at 9:07 AM, Karl E. Peters wrote:

> 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.
>
> -Karl E. Peters
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
> From: Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net>
> Date: Mon, June 01, 2009 11:45 am
> To: governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> On 1-Jun-09, at 4:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can
> > whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would
> > just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already
> > converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the
> > missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but
> > lawful constraint.
>
> Because of the time constraints, this is a comment for the future,
> and not specifically for the draft.
>
> In the event that the legal framework remains illusive, there is
> another route to advance the cause of an appropriate "accountability
> mechanism." In the absence of "lawful constraint," and even of an
> effective "global" peg to hang that hat on, there is nothing to stop
> a consortium of citizen-based organizations concerned about Internet
> Governance from developing an "Equity Statement" to use in
> challenging ICANN"s and the US Government's future intentions. The
> purpose of such an equity statement would be to propose what, in our
> view, would be the substance of any missing answering standards. It
> could and should state:
> - who would benefit, and why
> - how they would benefit, immediately and in the future
> - who would bear the costs and risks, and why
> - what the costs and risks would be, immediately and in the future
> - who would answer publicly, for what, and when
>
> For a fuller explanation of what an Equity Statement entails see:
> http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/equitystatement.html
>
> GG
>
>
> > On 27-May-09, at 8:48 AM, Garth Graham wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27-May-09, at 7:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> Jeanette, it may just be your phrasing, but I fear that you make
> >>> the same mistake that WSIS and so many others dealing with the
> >>> accountability problem have made. You think of accountability as
> >>> residing in an external "body" i.e. an organization, rather than
> >>> in rules or laws. This approach has two inherent problems:
> >>> 1) once it is put in place, everyone ignores ICANN and reaches
> >>> directly for influence within that "body" (further undermining
> >>> ICANN's already tenuous bottom up)
> >>> 2) the creation of the body just reproduces all the existing
> >>> politics within ICANN, with no guarantees that the result will be
> >>> any better. (infinite recursion).
> >>
> >>
> >> True, accountability is a function of the organization that acts -
> >> not some oversight body. But it also begins before the fact of
> >> acting - with clear statements of intentions. Thus the standard
> >> of evaluation can and should evolve dynamically from its operating
> >> environment and not just statically as in "rules or laws."
> >>
> >> "For every important responsibility there is accountability.
> >> Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly, fully
> >> and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the
> >> public in important ways. Responsibility is the obligation to act,
> >> which is obviously related to accountability, but it is
> >> conceptually different from accountability, the obligation to
> >> answer. While the answering obligation attaches to all significant
> >> responsibilities, the key is getting the answering. The answering
> >> is for intentions as well as results. When responsibilities affect
> >> the public in important ways, the decision-makers' answering must
> >> be public. And it is the governing bodies of organizations, not
> >> employee CEOs and managers, who have the obligation to account to
> >> the public. ... Holding to account also includes validating the
> >> answering whenever this is prudent under the precautionary
> >> principle. Validation of the answering means independent
> >> assessment (audit) of its fairness and completeness by people who
> >> can competently assess it." Henry McCandless. A Citizen's Guide
> >> to Public Accountability. http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/
> >> index.html

____________________________________________________________
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