[discuss] accountability

Sat May 10 11:56:57 UTC 2014

Perhaps we need to consider one of the hallmarks of accountability - 
separation of duties.  We can all agree that we are not looking for yet 
another bureaucratic layer, but we are equally not willing to rely on a 
"trust us" methodology;  having the only recourse being a lawsuit for a 
contract violation.  I think we need to bring some more imagination to 
this process.

Joe
On 5/9/2014 10:29 PM, Mike Roberts wrote:
> "without creating any new fluffy free standing institutions"
>
> Thank you, David!
>
> = "an expanded MS to serve IG needs would "float" in the ether,"
>
>
> I'll go along with "counterparty,"  - I called it "entity"
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2014, at 6:07 PM, DAVID JOHNSON <davidr.johnson at verizon.net 
> <mailto:davidr.johnson at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a false dichotomy.
>> The proposal is not to have a multi-stakeholder operation overseeing 
>> icann as a multi-stakeholder process.
>> That would lead to a "turtles all the way up" absurdity.
>>
>> The problem is to come up with some specific set of promises that 
>> ICANN could make, by contract, regarding what it will and will not do.
>> E.g., not use the monopoly control of the root to regulate content.
>> Or impose contract conditions not supported by consensus among 
>> affected parties.
>>
>> The question is to whom this promise would be made -- and would that 
>> counter party be appropriately trusted with decisions on when to 
>> enforce it?
>> That would be an easier question if we created a judicial 
>> (arbitration) branch that could hear the case.
>>
>> Maybe it is not sufficient to allow only registries to "bring the 
>> case" -- but the alternative would be to give registrants standing.
>> All this could be done by contract, without creating any new fluffy 
>> free standing institutions.
>>
>> If we can agree on the list of core obligations we would want an 
>> icann of the future to be bound by, surely we can agree on some rules 
>> of "standing" re what groups can bring a case to hold them to it.
>>
>> drj
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140510/1b8cb197/attachment-0001.html>