[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Tue Feb 18 09:57:59 UTC 2014

Hi,

I believe the AOC review mechanisms are the ICANN accountability 
mechanism.  I am still waiting to see in practice whether the current 
ICANN regime takes it more seriously, in practice - not just in words, 
than the previous regime.

While California Law may make the Board supreme at ICANN, in actuality 
it isn't, it is the Review Teams that are, and any failure of the Board 
and the Corporation to response appropriately is the sign of ICANN not 
being accountable.  For now, I still think it may possibly be living up 
to its accountability structure, but I am not a very trusting sort when 
it comes to corporations, so am waiting to see what is done with the 
ATRT2 report.

avri

AOC - Affirmation of Commitments 
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm

On 17-Feb-14 20:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 18/02/2014 02:22, George Sadowsky wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> If we want to move forward from Ian Peter’s conclusion below, the accountability framework for ICANN becomes crucial, which is why I quoted earlier from Jovan’s two diplomacy-based options.  ICANN can internalize IANA without a problem, but then how is ICANN made accountable in a manner that both leaves the degrees of freedom it needs to operate effectively and ensures effective global oversight over its activities?
>
> Maybe I'm naive (and maybe sometimes that is a good thing to be),
> but it seems to me that ICANN is accountable to its Board and its
> Board members are accountable to the communities that select them.
>
> If there's an accountability problem, surely we'd need to look
> at the Board selection processes again?
>
>     Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>