[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
avri at acm.org
Wed Feb 26 19:09:59 UTC 2014
Despite any comments I have made about the ICANN Board taking actions
without having first vetted an issue with the community and having
gotten the support and advice of its Supporting Organizations and
Advisory Committees, I believe that when they do go to the community and
the community comes up with nothing or something muddled, they are then
empowered to figure out the right thing to do.
Sometimes that may involve going back and trying once again, and
sometimes it may involve actually making a decision based on the best
information they were able to get.
The point is not that the community is always able to make the decision,
but in a bottom-up process, they should always have first call.
On 26-Feb-14 19:55, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> not to be forgotten: not always is the bottom-up advice clear and
> precise enough for the ICANN Board to just approve.
> It is not unusual to leave some tough decisions not made and "kicked
> upwards" to the Board. There are many good reasons why this can happen
> and on-one may be to blame; and occasionally there is a chance for
> creative ambiguity or the intent to let the Board decide then cry foul.
> This is not unique to ICANN. One day in maybe a decade or two, a list
> like this will be discussing something new and may find to great
> surprise that they had more good lessons than bad to learn from the
> ICANN experience. But then, they would have had to stick to the Reality
> Principle, as espoused among other documents in the recent report by the
> Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
> (full disclosures: a. I am a member of the Panel, b. you didn't need us
> to invoke the Reality Principle; guy called Sigmund.)
> Alejandro Pisanty
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2014, at 7:47 pm, Peter Dengate Thrush
> <barrister at chambers.gen.nz <mailto:barrister at chambers.gen.nz>> wrote:
> > In operational terms, if its possible to alert the GAC early to
> policy developments, and keep them posted about what is going on,
> and for the GAC to develop its own positions earlier, and share them
> with the MS policy development process, thats all much to the good.
> That should shorten lead times and reduce surprises and ambush.
> I want to reassure those that GAC-GNSO efforts that I
> referred to earlier are of this nature. We have discussed the
> working methods of the two bodies, and the need for them to be more
> aware of the others processes etc. We've discussed, for example,
> that if the GAC early on in the GNSO process would identify areas
> that it feels have public policy considerations, that would be
> helpful to both. And fairly mundane issues, like ensuring that the
> GAC knows what working groups are actively working on policy within
> the GNSO, and what stage they are at, and letting the GNSO know who
> the GAC topic leads are, so they know who to talk to about an issue.
> But discussion has been very much in terms of coordinating the two
> separate processes of the two bodies, with acknowledgement that
> there will be times when the two disagree (and that perhaps simply
> throwing all areas of disagreement to the board to sort out is
> perhaps not the best process).
> > Further, ICANN is much stronger institutionally and procedurally
> than it was in 1999. It is likely to be better able to consider the
> GAC engaging in a wider context
> While I was not around in 1999, I agree that ICANN seems
> now strong enough to deal with GAC engagement in a wider context.
> > All I would counsel is that the vast disparity of bargaining
> power be kept constantly in mind, and that not all members of the
> community can now be assumed to hold dear the same "Internet values"
> that have so well served the Internet and its institutions so far.
> > I disagree with Milton that the solution is to disarm the GAC. I
> say again that the better approach is to strengthen the board, and
> related process, and to be able to hold the board accountable.
> > Delay as a tactic can be dealt with by requiring that GAC advice
> should be given and processed according to a strict timetable, with
> the default favouring the advice being rejected. (The opposite of
> the current position over .Amazon and .spa).
> > A board that abandons an MS-made policy without compelling
> reasons should be subject to recall. Knowing that the board was to
> be held accountable like that would help it in its negotiations with
> the GAC.
> A good suggestion.
> And it has been my experience that the existing
> accountabiiiy procedures are not great for this specific purpose.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss