[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

Thu Sep 11 20:45:01 UTC 2014

On September 11, 2014 at 13:57 ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
 > > My tendency would be to put that power with the other major I*
 > > organizations, similar to the selection of the IETF, ASO/AC, etc,
 > > board seats. ICANN per se would get one seat.
 > > 
 > > I'd envision such a group as being small.
 > 
 > That sounds like a new organization.  I don't think it can be
 > constituted in time.  Also, I don't really see why (for instance) the
 > IAB or IESG ought to have anything to say _qua_ IAB/IESG about the
 > names policy ICANN comes up with in its policy-generation role.
 > Speaking personally, I'm a volunteer with enough to do already -- what
 > reason would I have to start reviewing every decision the ICANN board
 > makes?  Especially ,Ab€&(B

I was describing how we'd populate an independent judiciary within
ICANN as proposed in the earlier paragraph.

So, I think we agree in principle.

It would only take some ICANN by-law changes and other creation
documents.

As you suggested this would seem to be the least disruptive to
the current ecosystem and would fulfill NTIA's goals.

Again for anyone who wants a review:

  On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 01:32:31PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
  > 
  > I don't understand why something like an "independent judiciary"
  > couldn't operate within ICANN via some by-laws changes giving them
  > certain powers vis a vis the board of directors.

And if it concurs with an earlier suggestion by John Curran all the
better.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*