[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

Mon Feb 24 13:48:29 UTC 2014

On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> John, et al,
> 
> There is work underway to bring the GAC earlier into the policy development process so their input is available during and not just after the PDP concludes.

Steve - 

  That sounds like a step in the right direction indeed...  Does this lead 
  ultimately to policy development discussion (and consideration of all of 
  the various inputs) predominantly in some DNS policy development forum 
  (rather than supplication at the Board level), thus freeing the Board to 
  focus on oversight and accountability of these processes?

  As I noted - 

>> Do you mean accounting of the Board in its policy development role with respect
>> to the consideration of the GAC advice in a balanced manner?  How exactly would
>> the community have an accountability mechanism for the ICANN Board in its specific
>> role of balancing GAC input in policy development process, when such accountability
>> would be ultimately need to be anchored in the same Board which is also providing
>> the oversight to the entire policy development process?

  There lies a significant challenge in having the Board provide oversight and 
  accountability of these processes to the Internet community so long as it 
  also desires to insert its own judgement and wisdom into the final outcome 
  (particularly important given the lack of any formal Board election/removal 
   process which is accountable to any defined membership.)

  Yes, the Board needs to be able to review the outcome of the policy development
  process to confirm that was arrived at through fair and open processes and that
  all of the inputs were indeed considered in the process.  The question is really
  (beyond process review) to what extent does the Board get involved in _judging_
  the outcome and whether it is in best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN...

  One hopes that the work underway which you reference will let the ICANN community
  have the (nearly) final say in what policy is in its best interests, with the ICANN 
  Board stepping in only when the result did not follow the open and transparent 
  processes or when it poses a clear risk to the performance of the ICANN's mission.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.