[discuss] accountability

[Nii Narku Quaynor]

The statement was a 'promise is to be made to an entity'. That spells out a separation 

No one has called for "trust us" in this thread 

The imagination might come from the promises made to the entity?

Some illustrations of the promises are in David's statement. There are others also to be found in the ntia stewardship transition announcement 

> On May 10, 2014, at 11:56, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 this process.
> 
> Joe
>> 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> 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.
>>> 
>>> drj
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140510/4241bae6/attachment.html>