[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Sep 11 20:17:20 UTC 2014
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.
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.
Disclaimer: my views alone.
More information about the discuss