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

[John Curran]

On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
> I am perfectly happy to have you cast a wider net, but let’s be up front about it.   Changing ICANN’s current legal base is a much bigger deal than we have been generally discussing.

Mike - 
 
  I've seen a very wide range of proposals on this mailing list, everything
  from bodies with multiple branches (legislative/executive/judicial) to 
  Swiss bodies of "International Jurisdiction".  Are you actually saying
  that the idea of having the existing ICANN public benefit corporation add 
  members (as already fully provided for under the existing law) is really 
  "a much bigger deal than we have been generally discussing"?   I guess 
  it's a matter of perspective, but I would think that doing something with
  the existing organization was just a tad easier...

  You've suggested stopping discussion ("Before this thread goes any further")
  due to ICANN's existing legal structure and its constraints, and now follow 
  it up with "Changing ICANN’s current legal base is a much bigger deal than 
  we have been generally discussing"...   Are you saying we shouldn't discuss 
  what we can do within existing limits (without counsel) nor what we can do 
  otherwise (for fear of opening up the discussion)?  What exactly do you feel
  folks on this list can safely discuss, if they wish to consider meaningful 
  ICANN accountability mechanisms? 

> Given the very wide international debate that would be engendered by embarking on such a step, a debate that would require boundaries defined differently than those applying to ICANN’s present California base, it is not far from “starting over.”

  Why do you presume "a very wide international debate"?  ICANN is already
  supposed to be focused on the overall coordination of the various Internet
  identifier systems - one could readily define an ICANN membership structure
  with the respective policy development bodies (e.g. IETF, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO) 
  as members that both insured that ICANN was highly accountable, and only 
  afforded a potential mechanism for intervention in the case of a severe 
  departure from ICANN's mission and core values, one recognized widely 
  across the various affected communities.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.