<div dir="ltr">dear all,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 3 September 2014 15:21, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><snip> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It seems to me that if people were completely satisfied with ICANN's<br>
actions, then nobody would care where it was incorporated. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Completely agree. There is always going to be some form of law and the fact this is based in California really isn't relevant to any of the substance.</div>
<div><br></div><div><snip></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">To<br>
me, however, the goal we ought to prefer is one in which the right<br>
outcomes can be produced _even if_ the people involved would like to<br>
do the wrong thing. For instance, suppose that ICANN were arranged<br>
such that any Board decision could be overruled, and any member could<br>
be removed, by a majority vote of all the SOs (note: this is not<br>
originally my idea, and I'm using it just as a thought experiment).<br>
That would be a much greater check on action than the current<br>
naming-and-shaming answer we have today; for a bad decision today has<br>
considerable time (effectively, until the changeover of the board) to<br>
settle in and become established practice. Under the hypothetical new<br>
regime, both bonehead and malicious decisions could be cut off quickly<br>
if they were truly outrageous. _That's_ what we want, I think, and it<br>
may not need us to answer "who?" or "where?" in order to get the<br>
desired outcome.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is an important insight to tease out and share - thank you for sending it, Andrew. I agree with you largely. We do not want a system of Internet Governance that requires particular people or entities to be trusted: we need a responsive system where if bad actors get into a position to shape things, or an institution goes off the rails, the community can act together to correct things.</div>
<div><br></div><div>A system of redress and change such as you suggest can achieve that. So can the sensible division of power through structural arrangements that avoid concentrating it in one place.</div><div><br></div>
<div>As Pat Kane noted in the morning session on this topic, ICANN needs to evolve. In my view, in the post-NTIA-functions-contract age, the current system of accountability doesn't stand up.</div><div><br></div><div>
thanks,</div><div>Jordan</div><div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><snip rest><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div>
</div></div>