Dear All,
Thank you very much for all contributions
I understand your anxiety, your perplexity and your fear to touch this very sensitive issue.
I encourage you all that you need to tackle the issue matter how difficult and controversial it would be.
We must clearly mention the following
What is the description of the term accountability in a concise, precise and realistic / pragmatic matter within the frame work of international law?
We need to clearly and specifically mention what are the Legal Framework which would be applicable to the transitioned function? ,no doubt it should not be Californian Law as we do not wish to be at the mercy of Californian Judges
We need to clearly and specifically mention what is the accountability environment that we are talking about?
Who is accountable to whom and on what?
What are the mechanism (s) which should be duly put in place to implement that accountability?
Who are the members of that mechanism?
How multistakeholders, including Governments should act according to
their role and responsibilities?
Apart from governments representation whose legitimacy are enshrined
with their credential form Their respective Governments (participation Credentials)
what are the legitimacy of other multistakeholder ? .No doubt the notion of someone
speaking on behalf of herself or himself is totally illegitimate and
unacceptable
What are the partitioning in representation and footing between and of the four informally recognized categories of multistakeholders?
Governments
Civil Society
Private Sector
Technical Community and Academic
How the legitimacy of each group together with their accreditation should examine and ensured? ,
Who define and approve the terms and conditions and scope of accountability?
What are the criteria to determine whether or not those terms, conditions and scope have been implemented?
Who are policy making entities?
Who are the policy implementing entities?
What is the policy in question?
What is the relation between the current A o C in force and the envisaged accountability?
What is the future of ICANN BY LAWS?
Who can amend that?
How can it be amended?
Does the accountability terms and condition form part of Bylaw:
Why should it not be renamed to something else such as Convention, Charter, and Constitution and so on?
Should the current structure of ICANN be retained?
If not, what would be the revised structure of ICANN?
What would be the role of NTIA after transition?
Should it be given the authority to continue its legacy on some taks such as contract with Verisign?
There are many questions to be answered.
Regards
Kavouss
On 2014-12-17 16:07, Jordan Carter wrote:
Thanks Bruce, Steve.
I've read the rest of the thread and think it goes down a little bit
of a rabbit hole, but that's OK (maybe it means the same one won't
appear later?).
For me the primary concern with a non-defined use of the term "public
interest" is that it gives license to the person using it to advance
beyond the ICANN remit of technical coordination of the DNS and other
Internet identifiers, into all sorts of other things. Alternatively,
it can be used to try and dismiss proposed policy or practice that
make sense to the operational communities.
On that basis I have a degree of comfort with Steve's post. If we are
clear that ICANN serves the global public interest by serving the
operational communities and coordinating among and between names,
numbers and protocols, then other questions get a bit easier to
answer.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I think Steve's post points the way forward
on defining what we want to hold ICANN accountable for doing.
I would also apply the same reasoning to the comments going on a parallel thread
on "principles of international public law".
Certainly I would regard it as being in the public interest that ICANN
should discharge its functions properly, and in accordance with generally
accepted principles of law. I would be very wary, however, of linking
those concepts in a way that pointed to ICANN's functions being bent towards
promoting the multitude of objectives and outcomes that might be said to
be a matter of public interest, or called for by principles of international
public law.
So if we are to refer to these concepts, I think it is very important
*how* we refer to them. We should be very careful not to create a sense
that the narrow scope of ICANN's responsibilities for DNS is supplemented
by a broader ambition to use the DNS to pursue a general and unbounded set
of policies "in the public interest", or to accept responsibility for achieving
the goals set by the wide range of instruments and measures that make up
international public law.
Malcolm.
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community