joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat May 10 11:56:57 UTC 2014
Perhaps we need to consider one of the hallmarks of accountability -
separation of duties. We can all agree that we are not looking for yet
another bureaucratic layer, but we are equally not willing to rely on a
"trust us" methodology; having the only recourse being a lawsuit for a
contract violation. I think we need to bring some more imagination to
On 5/9/2014 10:29 PM, Mike Roberts wrote:
> "without creating any new fluffy free standing institutions"
> Thank you, David!
> = "an expanded MS to serve IG needs would "float" in the ether,"
> I'll go along with "counterparty," - I called it "entity"
> - Mike
> On May 9, 2014, at 6:07 PM, DAVID JOHNSON <davidr.johnson at verizon.net
> <mailto:davidr.johnson at verizon.net>> wrote:
>> I think this is a false dichotomy.
>> The proposal is not to have a multi-stakeholder operation overseeing
>> icann as a multi-stakeholder process.
>> That would lead to a "turtles all the way up" absurdity.
>> The problem is to come up with some specific set of promises that
>> ICANN could make, by contract, regarding what it will and will not do.
>> E.g., not use the monopoly control of the root to regulate content.
>> Or impose contract conditions not supported by consensus among
>> affected parties.
>> The question is to whom this promise would be made -- and would that
>> counter party be appropriately trusted with decisions on when to
>> enforce it?
>> That would be an easier question if we created a judicial
>> (arbitration) branch that could hear the case.
>> Maybe it is not sufficient to allow only registries to "bring the
>> case" -- but the alternative would be to give registrants standing.
>> All this could be done by contract, without creating any new fluffy
>> free standing institutions.
>> If we can agree on the list of core obligations we would want an
>> icann of the future to be bound by, surely we can agree on some rules
>> of "standing" re what groups can bring a case to hold them to it.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss