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

[John Curran]

On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:

> 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.

When it comes to policy, shouldn't a "consensus ICANN policy position" would reflect 
the Internet community's views as best determined by the body within ICANN with the
primary responsibility for DNS policy development?

I can only hope that you are using "consensus ICANN policy position" simply to note
the consensus view within the ICANN Board, and not actually suggesting that the ICANN 
Board indeed determines that which is the community's _consensus_ via its consideration.  

Without clarity on whether the Board is supposed to be setting policy versus measuring 
support of the community with respect to the developed policy versus assessing whether 
the policy development process was followed, there will never be ICANN accountability, 
since one cannot meaningfully discuss whether ICANN (i.e. the Board in your view) did 
its job without first defining that job.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.