[governance] JPA

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Willie, hi all,

I also like the focus on a 'permanent accountability mechanism".

In my view, three criteria need to be met before ICANN can be granted 
more independence (it seems unlikely that it ever will be fully 
independent of public oversight because, in one way or another, all 
private entities operate in the shadow of the states):

1. ICANN needs to be accountable to an external entity independent of 
ICANN itself. This is very hard to design for at least 2 reasons. First, 
civil society folks disagree on how much authority such a body should 
have (Avri used the nice metaphors of "teeth" and "gum" to illustrate 
the 2 options under discussion). Second, there is no good model around 
on the international level that we could copy or learn from. It is not 
clear, how a multi-stakeholder supervisory body that would keep ICANN in 
check could be designed and on what sources of authority such a body 
would rely.

2. ICANN needs to balance the influence of stakeholders. Right now, the 
Internet industry is significantly more influential than all other 
stakeholders. The internal fights in ICANN won't stop before there is in 
place a balanced form of representation and participation that all 
stakeholders accept.

3. The relationship between volunteers and ICANN staff needs 
readjustment. Internal accountability and transparency mechanisms should 
cover the activities of ICANN staff to ensure that they support policy 
development of volunteers. For example, one could imagine a right to 
information provision that applies to the communcation between ICANN 
staff and the board.

jeanette

Willie Currie wrote:
> Good point McTim. I think the other line of interest in the Snowe/Nelson 
> letter is the concern about the lack of a 'permanent accountability 
> mechanism' and the suggestion of a temporary extension of the JPA in 
> order to get one in place.
> 
> I think it would be good for there to be both an IGC submission as well 
> as  organisational and individual submissions that traverse the issues 
> in a range of ways. This would be part of a positional play with regard 
> to Commerce that would indicate:
> 
> a. there is still a problem of accountability regarding ICANN's 
> governance procedures
> b. there are a range of possible solutions being offered to this problem 
> by a diverse range of stakeholders
> c. there is genuine concern among stakeholders and a quest for a lasting 
> solution  - on a  broadly  multilateral, transparent, democratic and 
> multi-stakeholder basis.
> 
> We would be assuming here, rightly or wrongly,  that the Obama 
> adminstration would be more sensitive to these issues than his 
> predecessor's.
> 
> Willie
> McTim wrote:
>> Anybody specialise in reading tea leaves?
>>
>> http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090521_3747.php
>>
>> FWIW, the line: "He said comments received through NTIA's April notice
>> of inquiry will inform his assessment."
>>
>> Says to me that we should plant our flag on this one, no matter what
>> color it is.
>>
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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