Begin forwarded message:
From: CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: ¿Mutual Accountability Round Table? Date: 21 Nov 2016 19:14:08 GMT+01:00 To: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, "ccwg-accountability5@icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>
<< The idea of mutual accountability is that multiple actors are accountable to each other. How might this work in ICANN? It would be necessary to carve out a space within the various forms of accountability undertaken within ICANN that are of the principal-agent variety. So where the new Community Powers construct the community as a principal who calls the Board as agent to account, a line of mutual accountability would enable all ICANN structures to call one another to account. So one could imagine a Mutual Accountability Roundtable that meets at each ICANN meeting, perhaps replacing the current Public Forum. The form would be a roundtable of the Board, CEO, and all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, represented by their chairpersons. The roundtable would designate a chairperson for the roundtable from year to year who would be responsible for facilitating each Mutual Accountability Roundtable. Each Roundtable may pick one or two key topics to examine. Each participant could give an account of how his or her constituency addressed the issue, indicating what worked and didn’t work. This could be followed by a discussion on how to improve matters of performance. The purpose would be to create a space for mutual accountability as well as a learning space for improvement.>>
Good evening:
Allow me to express a certain hesitation, if not reservation, about the concept described above. Without being pedantic, we need to reflect upon the meaning of words.
1. The original Round Table had the benefit of a famous King. Whereas we do not need Kings or Queens; even a one-year Chair would be quite an Ask. Especially the first year. On the other hand we have been working very well recently with panels of Co-Chairs, and I do not see why that should not continue in this context.
2. SO/AC accountability is, rightly, mainly about the accountability of each entity to its membership, broadly defined. In my view, in practice that is usually going to be about how representatives are appointed and how policy positions (not necessarily 'decisions') are reached.
To extend that concept to mutual accountability of the SOs & ACs "to each other", is perhaps a step too far: (a) it is not clear how that might be implemented and (b) it would appear to introduce an element of conflict of interest - however mild - between SO/AC representatives' accountability to her/his membership and their accountability "to each other".
3. I think that the principal issue is not mutual SO/AC accountability, but rather mutual transparency. Thus for example, should I be representing an SO/AC (which I am not), I should be quite confident of my own accountability to my membership. What I would really need to know is the nature of my counterparts', among the other SO/ACs, accountability to their membership. And I would be uncomfortable should I feel that SO/AC representatives' accountability "to each other" was undermining their accountability to their memberships. Because that would increase the risks of capture. Naturally, should I request transparency from my counterparts, they would expect reciprocity. Thus, 'Mutual Transparency'.
I trust that Willie Currie, among other colleagues do not feel that I am splitting hairs.
Regards
CW