[discuss] accountability

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat May 10 13:10:41 UTC 2014


I think a formula that combines:

- coordinating bodies, of some TBD composition, with some limited
decision making capabilities, not only for transition but as part of the
long term solution

- and accessible appeals mechanism paths, both internal and external.
With some of them being advisory and some binding.

- with agreed upon levels of seperation

should be looked at for accountability.


On 10-May-14 07:56, joseph alhadeff wrote:
> Perhaps we need to consider one of the hallmarks of accountability -Hi,
> 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
>> <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.
>>> 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

More information about the discuss mailing list