[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<76f819dd0910060919u3b97805br140a134539a7578c at mail.gmail.com>, at 
09:19:54 on Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes

>> And doesn't the recent Affirmation spell out who they think they are
>> accountable to?
>
>Think about what the word "accountable" means, and think about what it
>means for someone (such as me for example) to say in speech or writing
>that "I am accountable to (say) Roland Perry."  Such a statement is
>meaningless overall unless Roland Perry can fire me, prosecute me,
>compel me to a more detailed and full accounting, etc (all of these).

Accountability also includes being required to listen to external 
persuasion, and to implement governance mechanisms which can respond to 
concerns which are expressed. Rather than continue talking in the 
abstract, let's use an example of the sort of decision that ICANN might 
make:

Currently (and for a long time now) it's a rule that cctlds are composed 
of two-letter codes reminiscent of ISO 3166; for example Switzerland = 
.ch ; but there are also 3-letter ISO codes. Within the new gTLD process 
there are debates currently taking place about whether 3-letter ISO 
country codes should also be reserved to the appropriate country).

The decision might be "yes they are" or
                       "no they aren't" or
                       "yes, but there can be exceptions".

It's an interesting challenge to get Internet users in general to form 
an opinion about such a thing. If there was a public vote, what do you 
think the outcome would be? Might it help the people decide, if someone 
took the trouble to explain to them what the implications of each 
decision might be? Eventually, the ICANN process will come up with an 
answer, but they will be accountable (in my terms) to the whole 
community during the decision-making process, and even afterwards (via 
what we might call an "appeal".

It seems a little harsh to propose firing the entire board, or even the 
whole of ICANN, if the result is not what one section of the community 
wants ("throwing the toys out of the pram" is an expression that might 
be appropriate in those circumstances).

Moving on, let's assume the answer to that question is the third option 
(not entirely unlikely, as it puts off the real decision-making until 
later).

So we enter a situation where a group of Welsh speakers want to be 
assigned .cym (which is a widely accepted abbreviation for Cymru, the 
name of Wales in their native celtic language). To make it easy we'll 
assume it's the democratically elected Welsh Parliament (for there is 
such a thing) which is asking for this.

ICANN is asked to make an exception, because .cym would normally be 
reserved for the Cameroons (as a 3-letter ISO code). If there was to be 
a worldwide public vote on this, how might people align themselves?

Abstain   - it's an academic debate I don't understand, and I can't even
               find either country on a map.
Vote "Yes - Why does the Cameroons need a second "cctld" reserved for
               them anyway, who died and made ISO god? The Welsh deserve
               a break from time to time.
Vote "No" - Rules are rules, and this isn't a compelling enough
               exception. The Cameroons is a nicer place than Wales, so
               get my vote.

Should the Welsh and the Cameroons be allowed to lobby for votes, 
stating their respective points of view? Why should the Cameroons have 
to "defend" something (at some financial cost) which they thought was 
secured in their name. Should the Welsh, as the upstart, pay for the 
Cameroon lobbying campaign? And if any or all of these decisions don't 
turn out the way someone who demands accountability was expecting, is it 
such a big issue that you need to be end up firing the Board, if the 
appeal is "successful"?

I'd like to hear your views on how accountability should be built into 
the ICANN system, to allow for oversight of the kinds of decisions I 
mention above, so that it encapsulates the "public interest" you seek. 
And please explain in detail how it simultaneously reflects the public 
interest of Wales, the Cameroons, and 
everywhere-thats-not-Wales-or-Cameroons.

>> So you don't accept the concept that a major element in the Review Team
>> is governments (not all of which are democratically elected, but would
>> nevertheless claim to represent their people).
>
>I think  you should have stopped typing when you came to "not all of
>which are democratically elected" since you're stating that they claim
>to represent the public interest, but of course they do not in fact do
>so.

Are you going to maintain a list of which Governments are elected, and 
which aren't; and hand out GAC seats to one and not the other. What 
about the small number of democratically elected governments where some 
actors feel the "wrong side" got elected, and therefore refuse to 
acknowledge them?

>Anyone claiming to represent the public interest that can't trace
>their claim of legitimacy back to the public is no more legitimate
>than if I were to speak on behalf of the Internet Policy Agency
>without authority, or to claim to represent ICANN.

This is more of your particular brand of assertion. While it's 
consistent, it's becoming boring.

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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