[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
edmon at registry.asia
Mon Feb 24 23:27:20 UTC 2014
on the question of "doing the right thing" (in the context of icann), perhaps the question is whether the board is the right place to make the decision on what "the right thing" is for the community? are members of the board a conduit of corresponding constituencies? representative of the constituencies as in the concept of a representational democracy? or are they acting independently? or?
suspending judgment based on past performance for a bit... we still need to ask what it is we believe this governance structure "represents". and then perhaps we can consider why and/or whether the ultimate arbiter of "the right thing" should rest with the board?
-------- Original Message --------
From: Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Sent: 25 February, 2014 6:41:02 am GMT+08:00
To: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
Brazil is an IG meeting and we need to distinguish between IG governance mechanisms and ICANN governance mechanisms. They are not the same.
Under the rubric of I* unified effort going forward toward a reformulated IG, post Brazil, then ICANN is one of the stakeholders, not the stakeholder.
Which does raise the question, referred to below, of who speaks for the various DNS stakeholders in the I* consortium.
Milton's assertion that the ICANN constituency groups have a voice superior to that of the Board's doesn't hold water. Regardless of whether it is constituency positions, or the recommendation of the GNSO Council, these are only some of several voices which the Board must consider in arriving at a consensus ICANN policy position.
>From a legal perspective, which may or may not be valued by those on this list, only an approved Board resolution represents the position of the organization.
On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:28 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
>> 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.
> People have been saying that since the release of the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team report, two years ago.
> I myself have seen zero change since then. The absence of change is not for lack of trying: the problem is structural. Until and unless GAC dissolves and governmental participants involve themselves directly in the policy development process on equal terms with all other stakeholders, this problem will not be solved. Put differently, as long as GAC meets in a room in isolation from all other stakeholder groups and runs a parallel, separate process, and has the bylaw-granted authority to intervene at the end, the current problems will remain.
> John Curran made an important point, however, that is being obscured in this discussion. It was not just that GAC is culpable for intervening in the final stage, but also that the ICANN board is culpable for turning itself into the final negotiator of policy rather than ratifier of what the bottom up process does. In other words, the board has a tendency to position itself as the "DNS policy board" rather than the board that just runs the organization that supports the policy process. The policy process should be driven by stakeholder groups.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss