[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Sat Feb 7 15:44:45 EST 2015

Ok ...
It is pleasing to ser that a lot has been said about 'accountability' and 'transparency' in ICANN and itd processes and ....how the ICANN Board makes decisions ...including the use of funds etc. 

I asked a question in yr 2005 about Which Law or Laws will be applicable to ICANN processes etc. ..that was ehen the PDP was in full swing and I was serving in the ccNSO....that question was shelved at that Level of ICANN structure

. It is now a Decade gone when issues such as Accountability and Transparency are coming up when the Corporation has grown roots into the rock!?! 

The possibile avenue to straighten issues is by getting out of the box and seek legal means if there is dissatisfaction or iltreatment since ICANN is the Player and Refree at thr same time.

That is my humble opinion with no fear or favour.

Kind regards

Yassin Mshana

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> 
Date:07/02/2015  16:00  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum 

ICANN has had severe 'accountability' problems for years and years ... and years.  It has been broken and remains broken.  Perennially, its accountability is assailed, becomes a topic - and remains broken.  For years ... and years.

David (Allen)

On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:07 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

On 7 Feb 2015, at 1:38 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

David, in the below you do two things—give a screed on behalf of ICANN and identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the hurly burly of a public email list.

	It was certainly not intended to be ‘a screed on behalf of ICANN’ - I thought I was very clear that I think ICANN has very significant accountability problems. The ICANN accountability resources I pointed you to make it fairly clear that ICANN has significant accountability issues. 
	Just off the top of my head, its request for reconsideration process (its appeal mechanism) is broken, with I think under a 3% success rate, the step after that is a mandated mediation process in which the ICANN general counsels office acts as both one of the parties and administrator of the process (which of course is an intrinsic conflict of interest) and that works about as well as you might expect, and its external review of decisions process 
	Rather, I was expressing my enthusiasm that after years of struggling against ICANNs accountability problems, we have a significant opportunity to fix some of them. 

Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived recurrently as a “tax” on global internet users). However, what I think is rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e. its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere is now effectively everyone in the world). 

	Yes, absolutely. Though defining the global public interest is of course a difficult question, and a subject of some discussion within the ICANN community currently. 
	And of course the issue of external accountability is a real one. There are mechanisms, and some of them work better than others. The structure within ICANN of the ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee) is designed to represent the interests of global Internet users, but opinions are divided as to how well it performs this function. That would be a useful discussion to have. 
	The regular (every 3 years) independent review processes, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (that has currently gone through the process twice, so ICANN folk tend to refer to ATRT1 and ATRT2). As I said previously, they include a healthy mix of people outside the ICANN system (e.g. ATRT2 included the Australian Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy), and experienced ICANN insiders (e.g. ATRT2 also included Avri), and I feel they are effective (I was part of one of those review teams, the Security Stability and Resiliency Review Team). But while a detailed independent review every three years is one useful mechanism, it is clearly not sufficient in terms of providing accountability for specific decisions. 

I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.

	The ongoing discussion is significant, and spread across a number of places - I don’t think there is any place in which global external accountability is discussed separately to other accountability issues (such as ICANNs internal accountability, and accountability to users of services it provides (the IANA service has specific relationships with Registries, RIRs, IETF, etc). The link I gave you to the accountability and IANA transition processes has links to the various places in which discussion is taking place. It is a difficult process to follow, due to its scope, large number of participants, and 

I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism, accountability, governance and so on that have been identified. Unfortunately to date no appropriate “neutral” venue or other circumstance has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its “public” funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would clearly be in the broader public interest.

	I suspect ICANN would be reluctant to sponsor a significant effort focussed on broader governance issues, especially in the current climate in which the CEO is under some pressure to focus on iCANN and reign in the resources put towards broader Internet governance adventures such as NMI. The ICANN community was not particularly pleased at this attempted expansion of ICANNs role. 
	I swear I am not trolling when I say that NMI is likely a potential funding source to support such as activity, though of course you might not consider an NMI funded (even if not NMI organised) process “neutral”. I would of course be willing to hear other suggestions. 

	Regards
		David

M

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form).  

Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:
a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.

            I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it. 

https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability

            And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?
Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en
The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work). 

            I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest.
            In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains. 
            Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. 

b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”

            This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?
            These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus. 

            My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. 

c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role

            The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role.

, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

            These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry. 
            And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150207/d5707bfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t