So, follow my logic here:
* Who is ICANN corporate ultimately accountable to (according to everyone)? The ICANN/internet community
* What is the main stated goal of this accountability working group? To empower the community to increase the accountability around ICANN and its actions
* What is the big sticking point on most issues? The creation of a new group or a structural change.
Let's take the recent .Africa IRP as a good example of accountability. Because it is.
Here's what happened - simple facts:
* The ICANN Board did not do its job sufficiently well. It did not ask the GAC for an actual rationale. And DCA went through all ICANN's accountability mechanisms - twice with subsets of the Board failing to act "neutrally or fairly" - and was rejected each time, until there was an independent group that looked at the issue. The Board failed.
* The staff failed. Not accounting for the fact that it repeatedly argued that the IRP did not have the right to do what it did, the staff did not act neutrally and fairly. By their own admission, they intervened in favor of one party. And then they redacted that information from the final report, not even telling the Board that they had done so. The staff failed.
Now, who exactly are these two groups now accountable to? Who is able to get to the bottom of this, find out what went wrong and make sure lessons are learned?
The answer, of course, is no one. Themselves. And from the responses that both staff and Board have come out with today, they both clearly feel that they have done no wrong either. There is not even the suggestion that they hold a post-mortem or similar review.
We are not going to see the details of what happened. And it is in the clear interests of the two groups who were found lacking in fairness not to disclose that information (the staff has already demonstrated its willingness to delete information it doesn't want people to see).
And so we have the final accountability process deciding unanimously on something and nothing will change as a result of it.
Why? Because there is no mechanism right now for the community to do what it is supposed to do and hold the ICANN Board and staff accountable.
What's the solution?
I would argue it is the ability for the existing community to hold hearings in which they are able to compel information and witness testimony.
This requires no new structures - the groups and people already exist. It is built around empowering the community. It does not give the community any new powers beyond which ICANN already claims to offer (openness, transparency). And it provides for real accountability: asking questions and getting answers. It also costs far, far less.
I would also argue that a community group, rather than a new individual, such as an inspector general, is the right way forward.
If you create another new role with one individual in, you basically recreate the ombudsman role all over again. It adds costs. It means one individual is forced into an impossible position (because, let's be honest, we're not talking about an inspector general *with staff*).
And it opens the door to the exact same issues that have introduced fundamental flaws to all the other accountability mechanisms: ICANN's lawyers write the rules (and change them when they don't like them), the person is reliant on ICANN money; ICANN's staff will overload the individual with process and confidentiality claims.
But if you take the community - the people that follow this stuff every day - and you empower them to ask questions and compel the provision of information and witnesses. Well, then you have real accountability. And accountability that makes ICANN itself stronger.
And before people slip into the habit of imagining the worst possible assumption and using that strawman to knock down the idea:
* Such a community panel would not have the right to fire people (why would it?). But it could certainly do things like say "we would encourage you to consider your position" if it found someone particularly inept
* Such a community panel would not involve itself in internal things like bullying or harassment or benefit. Again, why would it?
* Such a community panel would simply reflect systems of accountability that exist all over the world when you are talking about a public good. It is a select committee (UK) or a Congressional hearing (US). It is the ability to provide review where it is needed; accountability in a way that actually provides accountability, as opposed to the current approach of long processes, huge bills and ignored outcomes.
Put another way: why doesn't the community already have such a review power?
I would argue strongly that this approach would be easy to introduce - a few bylaws at most - be easy to argue in favor of, would fulfill the NTIA's suggestions to a tee, make sense to the wider world, strengthen ICANN overall, and come with very few downsides.
I hope you will seriously consider this approach at your meetings in Paris over the next few days.
Kieren