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. 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. 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; 
    "your best hope of redress"

re·view
rəˈvyo͞o/
noun
  1. 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. 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-%20Accountability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1419299658000&api=v2
PDF version : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414329/WS1%20-%20Accountability%20Inventory%20with%20Questions.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1419299658000&api=v2

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