At 12:03 PM 1/5/2016, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
At last, something everyone can agree on. The question then is HOW? How do we set up an accountability system that confines ICANN to this function. Our chosen method (which I continue to support) is to a) narrowly define the mission in writing; and b) allow people outside the corporation to invoke a neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to account when/if it goes beyond the mission assigned.
I guess I'd ask the question this way: Even assuming that we agree with the method we've chosen (i.e., to narrowly define the mission, and to allow people outside the corporation to invoke a neutral arbitral mechanism (the IRP) to call the corporation to account), do we think that the recommendations as currently formulated implement that approach in a way that is likely to be effective? And if not, why not? Personally, I have some concerns about that. First, I worry that the mission has become watered-down and so tangled up with qualifying language that it will not serve as an effective brake on ICANN's actions, and that the central role of "consensus" in ICANN's decision-making has been diminished to the point where it too won't be an enforceable constraint; and second, I am not yet convinced that the neutral arbitral mechanism, the important details of which have yet to be fleshed out, will, much like the current IRP, be unwilling/unable to enforce meaningful constraints on ICANN's actions. David
-----Original Message----- From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 9:52 AM To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Internet's design and ICANN responsibility (was Re: GPI)
At 04:19 PM 1/2/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
SNIP So, I don't think "the global public interest", whatever that means, does anything to help us to understand what ICANN should do. ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had and (given the design of the Internet) can't get.
+1
Very well put. David
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************