In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a corporation’s board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the company’s products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit organization (as examples).  For example, if I am not happy with a company that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply take my shopping elsewhere.  If I am not happy with a non-profit because it is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my own).

 

But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability.  After all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of security measures to protect information).  Thus, we have a true accountability problem.

 

To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of failures in my opinion is not enough.  Without the potential for losing customers or community participation because of such failures, there is little incentive for the board to act.

 

These are just my personal opinions.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

 

 

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Jeff Neuman
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?

 

Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN Board.

 

Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused on the governance level, or on operations?

 

That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board holds CE to account?

 

One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would also provide some relief to those damaged.

 

Thoughts?

 

Jordan

 

On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we have with ICANN. 

Not sure if you saw this article:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breach/

 

Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this?

Thanks.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

 

 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community