[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

Mike Roberts mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Thu Sep 11 18:09:49 UTC 2014

Before this thread goes any further, someone should ask a lawyer familiar with California statutes to give an opinion on the ICANN Board’s ability to delegate its powers to a third party entity, whether inside the bylaws or not.

- M.

On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 01:32:31PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>> I don't understand why something like an "independent judiciary"
>> couldn't operate within ICANN via some by-laws changes giving them
>> certain powers vis a vis the board of directors.
> Indeed, I think it could be.  In the ICANN case, there was a
> suggestion recently -- I think John Curran made it on list -- that a
> supermajority of all the SOs be empowered to vacate a Board decision
> or remove a Board member (I can't remember which one John was
> proposing, or whether it was both, but I think you need both for this
> to be effective).  I find that idea attractive because it is a fairly
> modest organizational change to existing structures that we already
> have, it makes the bar high enough that it'll be somewhat hard to use
> while yet making it possible, and it uses a multi-stakeholder
> mechanism -- the very thing the NTIA has called for.
> The IETF already has an extensive "appeal" (really dispute-resolution)
> approach, and we have a well-established recall mechanism too.  So I
> don't think the IETF needs to change its mechanism.  I also note that
> this diversity of mechanisms corresponds nicely to the diversity of
> communities involved.
> I'm in a poorer position to say something about the accountability in
> the NRO, though I know that at least two RIRs seem to have pretty good
> accountability mechanisms because of their membership-based approach
> to how they operate.
>> My tendency would be to put that power with the other major I*
>> organizations, similar to the selection of the IETF, ASO/AC, etc,
>> board seats. ICANN per se would get one seat.
>> I'd envision such a group as being small.
> That sounds like a new organization.  I don't think it can be
> constituted in time.  Also, I don't really see why (for instance) the
> IAB or IESG ought to have anything to say _qua_ IAB/IESG about the
> names policy ICANN comes up with in its policy-generation role.
> Speaking personally, I'm a volunteer with enough to do already -- what
> reason would I have to start reviewing every decision the ICANN board
> makes?  Especially …
>> represented. They each could also provide much of the funding for
>> their seat to help mitigate that potential CoI.
> …on my own dime?
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list