Cheryl, or is it Sisyphus now? Is being appointed to Accountability and Transparency Review Team a blessing or a curse? Not to slam you, but accountability and transparency have never been terms that come to mind when I think of ICANN. Good luck, you have your work cut out for you as you push that boulder up that hill.
Hi there Bill, Some response to your points (in reverse order) :- Firstly, Thank you for the good luck wish and 'the bolder up the hill image' I may quote that when the opportunity arises in the RT's deliberations... (with your permission I'll even reference it to you). The terms relationship beween Accoutability & Transparacy and ICANN:- - Even if it was a slam to me (which I understand it is not ;-) In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR change and improvement; - Thus my roll as the ALAC representative in this review team's activities, in my mind at least, is less of a 'to push things up a hill' but rather to find ways to get TO the top of the hill and find a pathway to allow more of us to follow there. Blessing or a Curse?- Life is full of 'mixed blessings' at least for me and change often improves some things and seems to damage others, but I've been a 'change agent' for a long time now and have learnt that there is advantage in not accumulating and carrying with you 'too many' negatives in a process... Recognizing them -Yes! Dealing with them - Certainly! But accumulating them as baggage and worse ignoring them -> NEVER a good idea! (Unless the outcome aim your after is the failure of the change process... So I'll go into this with 'a curse grows with curse returned' as a bit of a mantra and I can assure you that I see the Review Team model within the AoC and indeed this appointment (though we should have had more seats at the table) as an opportunity for real review and recognition for changes much needed... Finally re changing my nomenclature :-) I'll stick to Cheryl (CLO) for now thanks=> Recognition of the pushing it up hill image beside, the whole 'Son of the founding King bit' sounds like when I set up my second life character from a character pre set list and selected female but stayed somehow with a male voice for ever more ;-), I have a real issue with the deceit, duplicity and trickery associated with this character (and I certainly know when to move on ;-) so whilst the frustration and futility of the punishment set for him was (as a Myth / fable) highly apt; I think my 'sins' are rather different ones so I'm not meshed with the comparison of the Myths character set at all... Peer to the Gods (or powers that be) well yes I could be prevailed upon to wear that mantel ;-) I suppose... (Sorry but my eldest son did a course on Myth in his degree and I remember all too well proofreading far too many essays for him)... That said however if your taking the Albert Camus approach and analysis with of the Sisyphus myth as your meaning where "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." then I'll take that very specific part of the 'public record on Sisyphus' as an apt simile indeed :-) In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 28 March 2010 14:41, Bill Silverstein <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
Cheryl, or is it Sisyphus now?
Is being appointed to Accountability and Transparency Review Team a blessing or a curse?
Not to slam you, but accountability and transparency have never been terms that come to mind when I think of ICANN.
Good luck, you have your work cut out for you as you push that boulder up that hill.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 28 March 2010 01:43, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote: In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and
the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR change and improvement;
May be, but things have already been off to a rough start, regarding trust, as far as I'm concerned. Four committee members from GAC, four from GNSO, three from ccNSO, just one from ALAC. For all the private kind words and public bluster from the top about the value of At-Large, the Board still doesn't trust us as a full participant. The contracted parties (half of GNSO) have more representation at table than the organ that ICANN has itself entrusted to speak for the Internet user worldwide. Issues that At-Large has identified such as the secrecy of ICANN's regional meetings, are almost guaranteed to be shunted aside, as those within ICANN who benefit from the secrecy have double our voice. This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed. In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type
this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me...
I will remain hopeful. One seat is better than none, so at least we are *at* the table. And we couldn't have a better representative. Still, there is an awful lot within ICANN that a transparency review team needs to address. And I was hoping for more confidence from the Board in At-Large's willingness to fulfill the role assigned it. - Evan
This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed.
Good point. So in the future we must remember to propose twice what we expect to get. R's, John
Evan (and John ask for a mile to get an inch can be so exhausting but I guess if we 'must' we will ;-) => I hear what your saying and will take these points 'to the table' => indeed Evan your specific list of very recent 'incidents' (so where *not *talking old days or baggage here) where despite ALAC and At-Large being a very differently engaged entity within ICANN, and one that is increasingly being 'listed' as a desired inclusion (gets the "public input" check list box ticked I guess) for so many things... What we are seeing is where there is a potential or maximum ratio and an absolute (often mandated) minimum were get the later ;-( Certainly a 'novel way' to supposedly increase interaction, engagement and public participation in a much needed trust building exercise isn't it... *sigh* Apart from taking this 'to the A&T-rt 'table' I would like to explore via Vanda as our liaison to the Board, this specific issue so we'll add the matter to this weeks ExCom meetings Agenda... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 29 March 2010 07:07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 28 March 2010 01:43, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and
the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR change and improvement;
May be, but things have already been off to a rough start, regarding trust, as far as I'm concerned. Four committee members from GAC, four from GNSO, three from ccNSO, just one from ALAC. For all the private kind words and public bluster from the top about the value of At-Large, the Board still doesn't trust us as a full participant. The contracted parties (half of GNSO) have more representation at table than the organ that ICANN has itself entrusted to speak for the Internet user worldwide. Issues that At-Large has identified such as the secrecy of ICANN's regional meetings, are almost guaranteed to be shunted aside, as those within ICANN who benefit from the secrecy have double our voice.
This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed.
In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type
this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me...
I will remain hopeful. One seat is better than none, so at least we are *at* the table. And we couldn't have a better representative. Still, there is an awful lot within ICANN that a transparency review team needs to address. And I was hoping for more confidence from the Board in At-Large's willingness to fulfill the role assigned it.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The allocation of the seats on this committee is done, not much point in complaining about it now. In any event, we have much bigger fish to fry. Here's a few to start with: * The board's frequent failure to do what the bylaws require them to do, e.g., reconsideration, .XXX. ... * An institutional lack of compliance. Every clause in every contract that ICANN has with registrars and registries needs to be monitored and enforced. The failure to implement registrar data escrow for ten years, until the Registerfly fiasco made it too embarassing to ignore, is the most obvious example, but it's a chronic problem. * The so-called Ombudsman (Ed Hasbrouck is right, the board has never properly appointed him) is simultaneously ineffective and out of control. R's, John
On 28 March 2010 17:10, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
The allocation of the seats on this committee is done, not much point in complaining about it now.
In any event, we have much bigger fish to fry. Here's a few to start with:
* The board's frequent failure to do what the bylaws require them to do, e.g., reconsideration, .XXX. ...
How hard would it be to assemble sufficient detail on this?
* An institutional lack of compliance. Every clause in every contract that ICANN has with registrars and registries needs to be monitored and enforced. The failure to implement registrar data escrow for ten years, until the Registerfly fiasco made it too embarassing to ignore, is the most obvious example, but it's a chronic problem.
Agreed. There would not be much demand for a "High Security Zone" designation (as proposed in the current DAG) if the "standard security zone" actually had the public trust. * The so-called Ombudsman (Ed Hasbrouck is right, the board has never
properly appointed him) is simultaneously ineffective and out of control.
I thought that the Board recently rectified that situation. Still, I am concerned about the vision behind an office that is best known for the ever-more-elaborate swag, and the establishment of an always-open office during meetings that seems to view itself as an ICANN confessional. The deeply entrenched role of senior staff -- in making policy decisions as opposed to facilitating stakeholder consensus -- has been a deep concern of mine. I have seen it most acutely in the production of the DAG but also in many other places. (As best as I can now discern, the "Morality and Public Order" objection class in the DAG is a total fabrication by staff whose cannot be traced to any ICANN constituency.) The opaqueness with which Staff conducts its affairs taints the efforts of the constituencies that it serves. Something as simple as requesting staff reports to the Board (that are not of a personal or contractual nature) be public documents comes across as culture shock. - Evan
At 28/03/2010 11:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The deeply entrenched role of senior staff -- in making policy decisions as opposed to facilitating stakeholder consensus -- has been a deep concern of mine.
Not yours alone. Although the people that you are referring to are not part of ICANN "Policy Staff", it has been pointed out that the latter should really be named "Policy Support Staff".
I have seen it most acutely in the production of the DAG but also in many other places. (As best as I can now discern, the "Morality and Public Order" objection class in the DAG is a total fabrication by staff whose cannot be traced to any ICANN constituency.)
For better or worse (worse in my mind), this did come directly from the GNSO New gTLD PDP - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm, Recommendation 6. Alan
The opaqueness with which Staff conducts its affairs taints the efforts of the constituencies that it serves. Something as simple as requesting staff reports to the Board (that are not of a personal or contractual nature) be public documents comes across as culture shock.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 28 March 2010 23:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have seen it most acutely in the production of the DAG but also in many other places. (As best as I can now discern, the "Morality and Public Order" objection class in the DAG is a total fabrication by staff whose cannot be traced to any ICANN constituency.)
For better or worse (worse in my mind), this did come directly from the GNSO
New gTLD PDP - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm, Recommendation 6.
Upon reading that, it strikes me that this was a backdoor way to slip WIPO and TRIPS into the string evaluation process, which suggests which part of GNSO wanted it... :-P Now that there appears to be consensus on trademark issues, hopefully that rationale can be removed. So what's left? Note that Recommendation 6 also invokes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 of which says "*Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression".* So if we indeed invoke the GNSO recommendation as stated, we have an obligation not to have a process which impedes such freedom. In any case how can a string abrogate a human right? I am not aware of any "freedom from insult" clause in the UDHR or any of the other conventions mentioned in Rec 6. In any case, thanks for the clarification. Excuse the tangent, however this issue is now open for re-discussion so it's worthwhile to revisit this. - Evan
At 29/03/2010 01:01 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 March 2010 23:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have seen it most acutely in the production of the DAG but also in many other places. (As best as I can now discern, the "Morality and Public Order" objection class in the DAG is a total fabrication by staff whose cannot be traced to any ICANN constituency.)
For better or worse (worse in my mind), this did come directly from the GNSO
New gTLD PDP - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm, Recommendation 6.
Upon reading that, it strikes me that this was a backdoor way to slip WIPO and TRIPS into the string evaluation process, which suggests which part of GNSO wanted it... :-P Now that there appears to be consensus on trademark issues, hopefully that rationale can be removed.
So what's left? Note that Recommendation 6 also invokes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19 of which says "*Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression".* So if we indeed invoke the GNSO recommendation as stated, we have an obligation not to have a process which impedes such freedom.
In any case how can a string abrogate a human right? I am not aware of any "freedom from insult" clause in the UDHR or any of the other conventions mentioned in Rec 6.
In any case, thanks for the clarification. Excuse the tangent, however this issue is now open for re-discussion so it's worthwhile to revisit this.
I did participate in many of the debates that led to this recommendation. And there was considerable debate! It probably does not help to say that at the time, the final recommendation seemed an awful lot better than some of the alternatives that preceded it (and although I cannot off-hand remember what they were, I think the impression at the time was correct). What we ended up with was a compromise (one which NCUC at one point I think agreed to but ultimately they filed a minority report on it). For those with a lot of curiosity and probably a strong stomach, much of the debate (and probably the earlier alternatives) is documented in the new gTLD documents, and if you have sufficient time, MP3s. Perhaps your new effort will prove more successful. Alan
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
* The board's frequent failure to do what the bylaws require them to do, e.g., reconsideration, .XXX. ...
How hard would it be to assemble sufficient detail on this?
Enough to document it to a dispassionate observer? Not very hard, just look at the bylaws and read through the board minutes. Enough to persuade the board that they're not doing their job? Good luck.
* The so-called Ombudsman (Ed Hasbrouck is right, the board has never
properly appointed him) is simultaneously ineffective and out of control.
I thought that the Board recently rectified that situation.
I went through the minutes of all board meetings since the beginning of 2009, and although there are a variety of references to the Ombudsman, most recently to his idiotic attempt to be the politeness police, nowhere do I see any resolution appointing anyone to be the Ombudsman.
The deeply entrenched role of senior staff -- in making policy decisions as opposed to facilitating stakeholder consensus -- has been a deep concern of mine.
That is ICANN's biggest problem, a weak board that has never properly controlled and managed the staff. R's, John
Le 28/03/2010 22:10, John R. Levine a écrit :
The allocation of the seats on this committee is done, not much point in complaining about it now.
I think there actually *is* a point about complaining about it, John. I agree with Evan's comments and am myself also surprised about the composition of the A&T-RT committee. The current result is actually upsetting. Some constituencies at ICANN have made it a habit to engage in aggressive action to make their voice heard. Perhaps should At Large study ways in which it could flex its muscles too? Otherwise, we risk ending up as the bullied kid on the block. Perhaps should At Large ask the A&T-RT selection committee for a reconsideration to increase its number of seats? In addition, I would also like to remind you all, that we should not at all be satisfied either re: having only one Board voting seat, and we should continue working (dare I use the word "lobbying"?) tirelessly to obtain a second Board seat as soon as possible. Some specific members of the current Board nixed this initially. One day, they'll be gone. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Evan, I will be the last person to defend what I believe was a very flawed process, and not just because of the outcome. But we need to be careful to get the facts correct, or we will be shot down for the wrong reasons. The final composition of the review team is 4 from the GNSO (an unbelievable increase from the original 1), 4 from Governments - not quite the same as the GAC since the IS DOC was ex officio included. The ccNSO has 2 not three (still a doubling of the original 1). Our count (like that of the ASO) did not get cut, since it was 1 in the original proposal - it did get cut from what we believed it would get changed to however. The loser was the SSAC/RSSAC which were to have shared 1 rep, and that slot disappeared. Lastly, it was not the Board that made this decision, but rather the Chair of the Board along with the Chair of the GAC. That doesn't make the outcome any more palatable in my mind, but based on a number of actions at the Nairobi Board meeting, the current board is showing some signs of redeeming itself, so I wouldn't want to blame the entire Board for what was an extremely untransparent and unaccountable lead-off to the review whose purpose is "Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users". Not to belabour the point, but has anyone else noticed how the last phrase of the review title is conveniently omitted most of the time? Alan At 28/03/2010 04:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
May be, but things have already been off to a rough start, regarding trust, as far as I'm concerned. Four committee members from GAC, four from GNSO, three from ccNSO, just one from ALAC. For all the private kind words and public bluster from the top about the value of At-Large, the Board still doesn't trust us as a full participant. The contracted parties (half of GNSO) have more representation at table than the organ that ICANN has itself entrusted to speak for the Internet user worldwide. Issues that At-Large has identified such as the secrecy of ICANN's regional meetings, are almost guaranteed to be shunted aside, as those within ICANN who benefit from the secrecy have double our voice.
This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed.
On 28 March 2010 19:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
it was not the Board that made this decision, but rather the Chair of the Board along with the Chair of the GAC. That doesn't make the outcome any more palatable in my mind, but based on a number of actions at the Nairobi Board meeting, the current board is showing some signs of redeeming itself, so I wouldn't want to blame the entire Board for what was an extremely untransparent and unaccountable lead-off to the review whose purpose is "Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users".
Indeed. The three 'disenfranchising' decisions I referred to were actually made by three very different sets of decision-makers. That helps illustrate my point that the mistrust (or is it fear?) of At-Large is pervasive. If the Board wants to "redeem" itself, it will work with At-Large to help deal with our loss of a conduit once the transition happens from official liaison to Board member. Once that transition is complete, At-Large's ability to initiate policy as a constituency will be severely reduced. We will be reduced to reacting through conventional public comment mechanisms. Perhaps At-Large PDP needs its own board-blessed PDP process? Sorry for the diversion from the original issue, ICANN's own particular approach to "T&A". But the challenges that At-Large faced with getting its voice heard at this committee appear to be symptoms of being part of policy-making that we facing throughout ICANN. There are some encouraging steps -- we have been invited into forums that are certainly new to us. But there is still much to be concerned about. - Evan
I must sound like a warped LP when I say this but always top of mind is this fact. ICANN is an American corporation, no matter what is said. Its sensitivities are of type and its behaviour follows suit. I therefore take it as some progress when manifestly non-corporate interests are invited to the table. Carlton -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi there Bill,
Some response to your points (in reverse order) :-
Firstly, Thank you for the good luck wish and 'the bolder up the hill image' I may quote that when the opportunity arises in the RT's deliberations... (with your permission I'll even reference it to you).
The terms relationship beween Accoutability & Transparacy and ICANN:-
- Even if it was a slam to me (which I understand it is not ;-) In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR change and improvement; - Thus my roll as the ALAC representative in this review team's activities, in my mind at least, is less of a 'to push things up a hill' but rather to find ways to get TO the top of the hill and find a pathway to allow more of us to follow there.
Blessing or a Curse?- Life is full of 'mixed blessings' at least for me and change often improves some things and seems to damage others, but I've been a 'change agent' for a long time now and have learnt that there is advantage in not accumulating and carrying with you 'too many' negatives in a process... Recognizing them -Yes! Dealing with them - Certainly! But accumulating them as baggage and worse ignoring them -> NEVER a good idea! (Unless the outcome aim your after is the failure of the change process... So I'll go into this with 'a curse grows with curse returned' as a bit of a mantra and I can assure you that I see the Review Team model within the AoC and indeed this appointment (though we should have had more seats at the table) as an opportunity for real review and recognition for changes much needed...
Finally re changing my nomenclature :-) I'll stick to Cheryl (CLO) for now thanks=>
Recognition of the pushing it up hill image beside, the whole 'Son of the founding King bit' sounds like when I set up my second life character from a character pre set list and selected female but stayed somehow with a male voice for ever more ;-),
I have a real issue with the deceit, duplicity and trickery associated with this character (and I certainly know when to move on ;-) so whilst the frustration and futility of the punishment set for him was (as a Myth / fable) highly apt; I think my 'sins' are rather different ones so I'm not meshed with the comparison of the Myths character set at all... Peer to the Gods (or powers that be) well yes I could be prevailed upon to wear that mantel ;-) I suppose... (Sorry but my eldest son did a course on Myth in his degree and I remember all too well proofreading far too many essays for him)...
That said however if your taking the Albert Camus approach and analysis with of the Sisyphus myth as your meaning where "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." then I'll take that very specific part of the 'public record on Sisyphus' as an apt simile indeed :-)
In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 28 March 2010 14:41, Bill Silverstein <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
Cheryl, or is it Sisyphus now?
Is being appointed to Accountability and Transparency Review Team a blessing or a curse?
Not to slam you, but accountability and transparency have never been terms that come to mind when I think of ICANN.
Good luck, you have your work cut out for you as you push that boulder up that hill.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
I must sound like a warped LP when I say this but always top of mind is this fact. ICANN is an American corporation, no matter what is said. Its sensitivities are of type and its behaviour follows suit. I therefore take it as some progress when manifestly non-corporate interests are invited to the table.
That's a good point, although perhaps not in the way you intended. ICANN is not a regular US corporation -- it is a tax exempt not-for-profit charitable corporation, what's called an NGO in much of the world. I agree that it often acts like a regular for-profit corporation, but it's not supposed to do that, it's supposed to operate for the benefit of the public. R's, John
You got it John! Give the man a prize. Carlton -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I must sound like a warped LP when I say this but always top of mind is
this fact. ICANN is an American corporation, no matter what is said. Its sensitivities are of type and its behaviour follows suit. I therefore take it as some progress when manifestly non-corporate interests are invited to the table.
That's a good point, although perhaps not in the way you intended.
ICANN is not a regular US corporation -- it is a tax exempt not-for-profit charitable corporation, what's called an NGO in much of the world. I agree that it often acts like a regular for-profit corporation, but it's not supposed to do that, it's supposed to operate for the benefit of the public.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
On 03/29/2010 03:40 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
ICANN is not a regular US corporation -- it is a tax exempt not-for-profit charitable corporation..
Yes, but to be more accurate ICANN is *both* of these things: - A California non-profit, public-benefit corporation. - A United States organization that is exempt from US Federal taxes under tax code provision 501(c)(3) These are separate and distinct things. There are reasons why ICANN should be concerned whether it is properly classified under either of those categories. The California law under which ICANN obtains its corporate existence has many nice provisions that ICANN has done a contorted dance to avoid. See: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members (Part of the reason why ICANN is allergic to the word "election" comes because ICANN believes that it can divorce itself from the California law by never uttering the talismanic word "election".) It would be a good thing if ICANN were clearly to have us, the public or some subset, as "members" as defined by the California law from which ICANN draws its legal existence. This is something worth fighting for. As for the US Federal tax exemption - ICANN's basis for that was, if I remember right, that ICANN "lessens the burdens of government" (!!) I am no expert in section 501 law, but it does feel that ICANN may be a very square peg trying to push itself into a very round tax-code hole. In any case there is a clear question "who owns ICANN"? ICANN clearly does not own itself. Another way to ask this question is to go to heart of the concept of accountability and ask: Who has the power to force ICANN to change or, to go to the extreme limit, to force it to wind-up and distribute it assets? The term "accountability" is not a fuzzy-wuzzy phrase. Rather it is an iron fisted word built around the very solid idea that those to whom the duty of accountability is owed have the power and authority to require change. The way that ICANN is structured and the way it behaves suggest a belief that ICANN is a sovereign circle of perpetual motion beholden only to itself. If that is true then ICANN operates by principles that are the antithesis of accountability. The very first question that ought to be asked, and answered, by the review committee is "to whom is owed ICANN's duty of accountability?" --karl--
Grateful for this exposition..again.....Karl Karl has always been my authority on this matter from the very first time I heard him speak in 2007. In case you're all still puzzled, my use of the term "American corporation" - in context - was meant to be ironic. Carlton --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 03/29/2010 03:40 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
ICANN is not a regular US corporation -- it is a tax exempt
not-for-profit charitable corporation..
Yes, but to be more accurate ICANN is *both* of these things:
- A California non-profit, public-benefit corporation.
- A United States organization that is exempt from US Federal taxes under tax code provision 501(c)(3)
These are separate and distinct things.
There are reasons why ICANN should be concerned whether it is properly classified under either of those categories.
The California law under which ICANN obtains its corporate existence has many nice provisions that ICANN has done a contorted dance to avoid. See: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members
(Part of the reason why ICANN is allergic to the word "election" comes because ICANN believes that it can divorce itself from the California law by never uttering the talismanic word "election".)
It would be a good thing if ICANN were clearly to have us, the public or some subset, as "members" as defined by the California law from which ICANN draws its legal existence. This is something worth fighting for.
As for the US Federal tax exemption - ICANN's basis for that was, if I remember right, that ICANN "lessens the burdens of government" (!!) I am no expert in section 501 law, but it does feel that ICANN may be a very square peg trying to push itself into a very round tax-code hole.
In any case there is a clear question "who owns ICANN"?
ICANN clearly does not own itself.
Another way to ask this question is to go to heart of the concept of accountability and ask: Who has the power to force ICANN to change or, to go to the extreme limit, to force it to wind-up and distribute it assets?
The term "accountability" is not a fuzzy-wuzzy phrase. Rather it is an iron fisted word built around the very solid idea that those to whom the duty of accountability is owed have the power and authority to require change.
The way that ICANN is structured and the way it behaves suggest a belief that ICANN is a sovereign circle of perpetual motion beholden only to itself. If that is true then ICANN operates by principles that are the antithesis of accountability.
The very first question that ought to be asked, and answered, by the review committee is "to whom is owed ICANN's duty of accountability?"
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Silverstein -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond