[governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and
Willie Currie
wcurrie at apc.org
Wed Sep 16 11:12:21 EDT 2009
Good point, Danny. It would be worth pointing that out in submissions to
ICANN.
APC is planning to make a submission and it would be good if the IGC
could say something about the two amendments as well. There are two
inter-related problems with the proposed amendments:
1. While the provision for the ICANN community to request for the Board
to re-examine a decision is a step forward, there is still no democratic
sanction for the Board if the community fundamentally disagrees with a
Board decision even after it is re-examined by the Board. The community
still does not have the power to dismiss the Board.
2. While the Independent Review Body and the expansion of its functions
is a step forward, it still does not address the problem that the Board
can ignore its findings and recommendations if the Board determines that
the recommendations 'are not in the best interests of ICANN'.
Both amendments ultimately depend on the disposition of the Board
towards the issue under re-examination or review. Certainly it would be
an unwise Board that completely ignores the expressed views of
two-thirds of the ICANN community or the reasoned recommendations of
senior jurists, but bylaws are not about dispositions, they are to do
with fair and reasonable conduct by those in authority. In the event
that that is lacking, there needs to be some ultimate sanction such as a
power for the ICANN community to dismiss the Board. The ICANN
President's Strategy Committee recognised this in its recommendations on
accountability when it proposed the establishment of 'an extraordinary
mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board in special
circumstances'. This is simple democracy and is a basic feature of all
democratic organisations. That it is missing from ICANN's bylaws is a
signifier of a lack of accountability and democratic procedure that can
not be cured by the current proposed amendments.
It is also interesting to note that the EU in its communication on
internet governance of 18 June, was of the view that 'one element of an
evolution of the current governance system could be the completion of
an internal ICANN reform leading to full accontability and
transparency'. Unfortunately, inasmuch as these two bylaw amendments are
intended to achieve 'full accountability', they fall short.
Willie
Danny Younger wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> There are many legitimate reasons for delaying comments until the last moment. In this particular case, those of us that follow accountability issues understand that the first real test of ICANN's current Independent Review Process comes next Monday 21 September when the .xxx dispute (the ICMregistry-versus-ICANN case filed on 6 June 2008) is heard by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in NYC.
>
> My own view is that it makes little sense to amend the bylaws to create an Independent Review Tribunal as an accountability mechanism when we haven't even had a chance to analyze whether the current IRP works sufficiently or is somehow deficient.
>
> -- danny --
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC
>> To: "Governance/IGC List" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 5:51 PM
>> hi,
>>
>> i am planning to, ad it is a good idea.
>>
>> but like many people, i rarely get comments in befoe
>> the last day.
>>
>> thanks for the reminder. when i saw your note i had
>> moment's panic thinking i had missed the deadline.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2009, at 18:08, Danny Younger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Interesting. ICANN puts up a public forum
>>>
>> dealing with Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve
>> Accountability and not a single member of this community
>> posts any comments whatsoever. Instead, community
>> members tell us about plenary activities that are held that
>> still don't result in any meaningful comments on
>> accountability being put through directly to ICANN in a
>> timely fashion.
>>
>>> If you really cared about ICANN Accountability one
>>>
>> would think that you would be conveying your concerns
>> directly to ICANN when the opportunity presented
>> itself. Comments may be sent to iic-proposed-bylaws at icann.org
>> until 25 September.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coallition on ICANN
>>>>
>> Accountability and International Conformity - IAIC
>>
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 9:16 AM
>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>
>>>> As per the proceedings of the EuroDIG.org plenary
>>>>
>> no 3 on
>>
>>>> The Post-JPA
>>>> Phase: towards a future Internet Governance Model,
>>>>
>> there
>>
>>>> has been
>>>> discussion amongst the European Governments and
>>>> participants about the
>>>> role of ICANN and more accountability of it in
>>>>
>> terms of
>>
>>>> Internet
>>>> Governance Forum. There has a need been identified
>>>>
>> for
>>
>>>> creation of a
>>>> "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and
>>>> International
>>>> Conformity - IAIC" (though proposed in its
>>>>
>> structure here
>>
>>>> more
>>>> sensibly) at the IGF in order to deal with the
>>>>
>> ICANN
>>
>>>> related issues
>>>> more strategically, tactically with a
>>>>
>> multistakeholder
>>
>>>> participation
>>>> within the light of the Tunis Agenda or if not
>>>>
>> within this
>>
>>>> context but
>>>> then realizing that although ICANNs
>>>>
>> constitutional
>>
>>>> documents and
>>>> by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant
>>>> international
>>>> organisations and to carry out its activities in
>>>>
>> conformity
>>
>>>> with
>>>> relevant principles of international law and
>>>>
>> applicable
>>
>>>> international
>>>> conventions and local law, there are no related
>>>>
>> formal
>>
>>>> accountability
>>>> arrangements and this can be the first step to
>>>>
>> create this
>>
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> IGF process needs to be kept separate but
>>>>
>> interconnected
>>
>>>> with ICANN
>>>> (though this comment is still very vague).
>>>>
>>>> Your suggestions on this proposal would be really
>>>>
>> useful
>>
>>>> and I am
>>>> circulating this to other IG related lists for
>>>>
>> input and
>>
>>>> participation.
>>>>
>>>> --Regards.
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>>> @skBajwa
>>>> Answering all your technology questions
>>>> http://www.askbajwa.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>>>
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090916/84003050/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list