Thank you posting this draft document to begin to inventory ICANN's accountability mechanisms. I've got a few comments and suggestions for edits to the inventory list going forward: 1. I think some of the mechanisms that are labeled "redress" are actually "review". See the definitions below, but basically, since mechanisms like ReconRequest and IRP and the Ombudsman are only making recommendations to the board to change its mind on a decision, and have no authority to set aside a decision on their own, they more appropriately categorized as "review" mechanisms (and not redress). 2. There isn't any mention of Transparency in the inventory of accountability mechanisms and since we all know we can't have accountability without transparency we need to include the mechanisms in place to provide transparency (like DIDP and perhaps other policies) at ICANN. For example transparency mechanisms regarding all key Board, GNSO, GAC, and ALAC decisions should be included. 3. We should also include a column to describe through which specific mechanism are these accountability tools utilized (for example GNSO holds board accountable through elections of board members; a community member could file a complaint with the Ombudsman's Office or request the California Attorney General investigate ICANN by not following its bylaws). We can then look at things like "standard of review", or "time constraints" in process, and "possible barriers or costs" to accessing or being able to make meaningful use of the specific mechanism and trace out where we might have trends or places needing strengthening. 4. We should include the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) which precedes the IRP in this list of accountability mechanisms. 5. Exceptions need to be taken into account for mechanisms like lawsuits where parties are required to waive their rights to file a lawsuit against ICANN (for example new gtld applicants) if there is a dispute so the accountability mechanism isn't available to them. 6. Also the final mechanism listed wrt to the Registry and Registrar Agreements could be described as filing a complaint with ICANN's Compliance Dept. This is also "review" and not "redress" since one is only asking ICANN's compliance dept to decide differently on a compliance dispute. Thanks, Robin Is it a "review" or "redress" mechanism? Google: re·dress rəˈdres/ verb 1. remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation). "the power to redress the grievances of our citizens" synonyms: rectify, correct, right, put to rights, compensate for, amend, remedy,make good, resolve, settle More noun 1. remedy or compensation for a wrong or grievance. "those seeking redress for an infringement of public law rights" synonyms: compensation, reparation, restitution, recompense, repayment,indemnity, indemnification, retribution, satisfaction; justice "your best hope of redress" re·view rəˈvyo͞o/ noun 1. a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary. "a comprehensive review of defense policy" synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, examination,investigation, inquiry, probe, inspection, study "the council undertook a review" verb 1. examine or assess (something) formally with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary. "the company's safety procedures are being reviewed" synonyms: remember, recall, reflect on, think through, go over in one's mind, look back on "he reviewed the day" On Dec 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thanks Samantha,
Just adding a link to the resource for everyone to access easily : DOC version : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accounta... PDF version : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accounta...
Mathieu
Le 23/12/2014 02:57, Samantha Eisner a écrit :
Hi -
I’ve done a first attempt (which is by no means comprehensive) of our assigned task and uploaded to the wiki. I think we’d benefit from seeing what other detail we’d like in there, so I put this out to start the conversation.
Best,
Sam
On 12/16/14, 1:43 PM, "David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I agree David David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849
On 12/16/14 2:04 PM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Samantha, Colleagues,
That is indeed what I understand from the discussion. You could also add a 3) is it review, redress or check & balance (see Netmundial definition of Accountability).
Best Mathieu
Le 16/12/2014 13:04, Samantha Eisner a écrit :
Colleagues,
Listening to the discussion, I propose think that one of the new refined tasks that we could undertake would be, for each mechanism that we’ve identified on the inventory, first try to answer the questions of:
1) To whom does this mechanism seek to make ICANN accountable; and 2) For what
This could be a starting point for parsing through the next wave of issues that we are agreeing to take on.
Best,
Sam
On 12/15/14, 9:23 AM, "David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
Thanks, Samantha. On the subject of contractual sources of accountability, it should be noted that the proposed withdrawal of NTIA from IANA functions will remove NTIA as a source of accountability enforcement. I propose that the Sub Group look for other contractual sources and at the same time explore the possibility of broadening the scope of accountability enforceable by contract. For example, the registries and registrars could enter into contracts with ICANN covering the IANA functions in addition to the following: 1. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required contract terms) that are not supported by a demonstrated consensus among affected parties. 2. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required contract terms) that do not relate to issues the uniform resolution of which is necessary to assure sound operation of the domain name system. 3. ICANN could agree by binding contract not to impose rules on third parties (by means of policies, accreditation standards, or required contract terms) that relate to online content or to online behavior that does not threaten the sound operation of the domain name system? 4. ICANN could agree that any claim that it has not complied with the previous three obligations may be brought by any adversely affected party before an independent review panel that can issue decisions that are binding on ICANN.
David
David W. Maher Senior Vice President Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849
On 12/15/14 9:30 AM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
> Hi all - > > I posted a new version of the document on the wiki page in clean and > redline form. The proposed changes include: > 1. To address Malcolm Hutty¹s edit regarding contractual sources of > accountability, I made a ³contract² heading and also listed Registry > and > Registrar Contracts under there. > 2. To address David¹s inclusion of SSAC recommendations as a source > of > accountability, I incorporated a heading under Bylaws that accounted > for > Advisory Committee inputs. (Note that action is pending on ATRT2 > recommendations regarding ICANN¹s obligations on considerate of > advice >from ACs other than the GAC). Because identifying accountability in > terms > of advice did not then seem complete without reference to the policy > recommendations upon which that advice is often given, I referenced > the > policy development/Board consideration of policy recommendations for > each > of the SOs. > 3. Inserted summary listings of all ATRT recommendations (1 and 2) > > In terms of background documentation, I modified the page to make a > clear > delineation between the background info and the drafting work > ongoing. > In > line with David¹s concern and Bruce¹s suggestion, I excerpted the > presentation I previously circulated, and posted only the part that > deals > with the inventory effort, so as not to bring all the questions in at > this > stage. > > I also included an excerpt to the inventory effort undertaken by > ICANN in > advance of the first postings on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Sam > > > > On 12/13/14, 4:01 PM, "Bruce Tonkin" > <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > wrote: > >> Hello Samantha, >> >> Is it possible to split this presentation from London into its two >> components? >> >> The first few slides list some of the accountability mechanisms >> available >> within the ICANN structure. The ATRT2 review identified some >> improvements to make to these mechanisms. >> >> The slides from 11-28 are a general presentation about >> accountability > >from Professor Jan Aart Scholte, School of Global Studies, > .University >> of >> Gothenburg. >> >> He lists 9 framing questions to consider when looking at >> accountability >> mechanisms: >> >> (1) What is accountability? >> >> - processes whereby an actor answers to other actors for the >> impacts on >> them of its actions and omissions >> >> (2) with what components? >> >> - transparency >> >> - consultation >> >> - monitoring and evaluation >> >> - correction and redress >> >> >> (3) for what purpose? >> >> - financial review; 'the accounts' >> >> - performance measurement >> >> - democratic participation/control >> >> - moral probity; ecological integrity; peace; etc. >> >> >> (4) Accountability by whom? >> >> - challenge of pinning down and specifying impact in the context of >> complex polycentric governance >> >> >> (5) for what? >> >> - actual formal mandate >> >> - desired mandate (content? spam? digital access?) >> >> >> (6) to whom? >> >> - 'the public' of significantly affected people (but metaphysical, >> ecological?) >> >> - 'the public' not unitary, as different people are differently >> affected >> >> - constituencies (divisions within and overlaps between) >> >> >> (7) for whom? >> >> - myth of a universal 'global community' with same interests and >> equal >> power >> >> - skewed accountability on lines of age, caste, class, >> (dis)ability, >> faith, gender, geography, language, nationality, race, sexuality >> >> >> (8) via what channels? >> >> - hegemonic veto >> >> - intergovernmental multilateralism >> >> - (global) political parties and parliaments >> >> - multi-stakeholder arrangements >> >> - civil society deliberation and mobilization >> >> - judiciary (court, inspection panel, evaluation exercises, >> ombudsman) >> >> - mass media >> >> >> (9) how accountably? >> >> - 'When you point a finger, you need to do it with a clean hand' >> >> - transparency, consultation, monitoring and redress of those who >> (claim to) speak for affected publics >> >> Regards, >> Bruce Tonkin
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1 --
Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1