Hi Rahul, Kindly find inline sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 14 Mar 2015 13:45, "Rahul Sharma" <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Seun. Generally, For-Profit Private sector organizations are
accountable to shareholders. ICANN doesn't have shareholders, hence its Board is accountable to none.
SO: ICANN is not a For-Profit private organisation and yes most For-Profit private organisations are accountable to their share holders(especially for public limited liability)
Can you please share more details on the organizations that do not have shareholders but whose Board is accountable to external community?
SO: I don't think I mentioned "external community" in my mail. I said I know private organisations that are accountable to those it serves (which is the organisation's community). Example of that is the RIR.
That would be a good model for the group to study. Also when you say Board accountable to the community they serve, how are they legally accountable to the community?
SO: Yes they are legally accountable, especially if you would consider an organisation bylaw to be a legal document. kindly refer to my comment above.
I agree when you say that "Anything external to an organisation (the community and board) should only be used as a tool to resolve any possible dispute", but for that to be exercised, a provision needs to be put in place that gives such power to the external community.
SO: Nope, i don't think the provision should give power to the external community but it should give power to the community to make use of external tools when required(not the other way round). Example of that is using an independent appeal panel to resolve a particular issue.
I would also disagree when you say that "Until now, ICANN has not had the opportunity to focus on building strong accountability mechanism within it's community, due the distractions of dancing to the external tune of accountability." - it has been 17 years since its inception. I do not see any reason why cannot there be parallel processes run to study aspects of both internal and external accountability.
SO: Kindly note that my use of ICANN here includes both the community and board. There has been effort in the past to get ICANN more accountable but none of such can be compared to what we are experiencing right now. It is the first time we are having accountability become a perquisite to transition which is an indication that approach to implementation of outcome of this WG will be different from that of the past. For the first time, we have a process whose outcome would be beyond being mere recommendation to the board (as it's done in the past). Hence the reason why we have a more focused gaze on this process. I don't know how much of board involvement happened at development stage of accountability initiatives in the past, but I think this particular one is getting double of whatever measure of attention they gave in the past.
Am also not sure if formal exercise has ever been undertaken to study aspects of external accountability for ICANN - if there has been, would be glad to learn more details on it.
SO: It depends on what external mean here as some would consider the NTIA oversight to be an external accountability. Are you then suggesting the possibility of having something similar going forward? Cheers!
On 14 March 2015 at 17:20, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rahul,
I know quite a number of private sector organisation whose board are
held accountable. More importantly, they are accountable to the community they serve. Anything external to an organisation (the community and board) should only be used as a tool to resolve any possible dispute between both sides. Until now, ICANN has not had the opportunity to focus on building strong accountability mechanism within it's community, due the distractions of dancing to the external tune of accountability. The mechanism that is built by the community and adhered to by both side of the community will provide a more sustainable, practical and effective accountability.
That is what I think needs to be ensured in the process and I can say
things seems to be moving in the right direction.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 14 Mar 2015 12:15, "Rahul Sharma" <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com> wrote:
Carrie to answer your question, ICANN Board needs to have external
accountability, based on pre-defined parameters. ICANN is a not-for-profit private organization based out of California. According to applicable laws, I understand that Board of private sector organizations are accountable to none. But ICANN is not just any private sector organization - it's a trans national institution meant to selflessly serve entire globe, and thorough checks and balances need to be in place to determine whether job it's doing is right, coz its actions impact global community.
How can this be provisioned is the real question that we need to find
answers to.
Best Regards, Rahul Sharma
On 13 March 2015 at 18:40, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
May I ask the elephant in the room question....
You have no control over the ICANN board at this time here and now.
What makes you believe that once ICANN leaves America and the cast if characters become new unknown even nefarious players that you will have control then?
You must put in a law enforcement quotient even for Interpol to have
standing. A lot of money is involved. Even now there is no accountability on monies spent, so law enforcement and local/foreign criminal law must be cited in these papers
Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thank you. I hope that it is possible for the CCWG-A to design of
these changes in a fail fool proof manner so as to:
1. Ensure that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that
Positive (will leave this term undefined) Board Members are not recalled
2. There is a balance within the Community which would prevent its power over ICANN's management are exercised with fair reason and proportionately and NEVER abused.
and
3. Limitations would be placed on ICANN excessively going beyond its scope, but continues to coordinate Names and Numbers as also continue to work on policy areas that can't be ignored.
If there is adequate time to design and implement these changes with the required safeguards, it would indeed be desirable to have these changes.
Sivasubramanian M
Sivasubramanian M
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I agree with Mathew Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Mar 2015, at 03:57, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
> > The discussions as to what is in WS1 and WS2 has been going for
some time and considerable work has been undertaken on WS1 issues (further separated into WP1 and 2).
> > I don't think there was ever agreement that WS1 (pre-transition) issues should be minimal. Most of the community has been asking for some pretty substantial accountbailty issues to be addressed or committed to prior to the transition. > > Matthew > > On 3/11/2015 9:00 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: >> >> Hi Sivasubramanian, >> >> This comes as something out of the blue in the sense that the CCWG has been actively discussing a wide range of Work Stream 1 proposals that have been clearly signalled in writing for weeks and weeks now. >> >> Do you have some concrete proposals about the sorts of items before this CCWG and its Working Parties that you believe *should* be part of Work Stream 1 (pre-transition)? >> >> That would be very helpful input, as soon as possible. >> >> I think the CCWG at its meeting in Istanbul will need to resolve its pitch to the community as to what should be in WS1 and WS2.... >> >> >> thanks, >> Jordan >> >> >> On 12 March 2015 at 13:54, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> >>> I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised here as a point to consider by the whole group: >>> >>>> Notes: 2. Brief Discussion: >>>> WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but needs to take place post transition. >>>> >>>> Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1. >>>> Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors. >>>> Community empowerment over ICANN’s management. >>>> Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing basis post transition. >>> >>> With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the formation of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such changes to the Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to recall members of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even Community empowerment over ICANN management. >>> >>> Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment such changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer blue print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise to think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive. >>> >>> I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the Accountability framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At best, WS 1 could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post transition, after more elaborate thinking. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community