<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs



It seems to me that there are two fundamental questions that need to be
answered with regard to accountability:

1. Accountable to whom?

2. Accountable for what?

I think a very interesting discussion could take place discussing those two
questions.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion 
> amongst SOs and ACs
> 
> The discussion could even be an attempt to define what each 
> stakeholder means by accountability. There are no doubt as 
> many different takes on what it actually means as there are 
> organisations willing to take part in the joint AC/SO session...
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 03/09/09 17:03, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> >> I would not side-step taking on the question of "accountability to 
> >> governments" just because people find it odious. Actually, I think 
> >> that's a good reason to take it on.
> > 
> > It will no doubt be on the minds of the GAC, if they decide to 
> > participate. So defining what is meant by accountability by various 
> > stakeholders may be a good way to start the discussion.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst 
> > SOs and ACs
> > From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, September 03, 2009 5:19 am
> > To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Hello Tim,
> >> 
> >>> But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability.
> >> 
> >> That would certainly be useful at some point. There have 
> indeed been 
> >> some proposals that were prepared by a President's advisory 
> >> committee, but there hasn't really been an open community 
> discussion 
> >> on the topic at an ICANN meeting. The topic seems to get more 
> >> discussion at USA hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums 
> >> under the topic of Internet Governance generally.
> > 
> > NCUC strongly favors making accountability the focus, inter 
> alia for 
> > the reasons Bruce mentions. Moreover, it's probably a more 
> effective 
> > counterproposal to the GAC than malicious conduct.
> >> 
> >> Part of the issue is defining what is meant by 
> accountability by the 
> >> various parties raising that issue.
> >> 
> >> Do they mean accountable to a Government or Governments, 
> or do they 
> >> mean accountability to the ICANN community - ie accountable to 
> >> "members' in some way? Sometimes it seems to me that parties mean 
> >> accountable to someone that they can influence :-)
> > 
> > Defining the topic narrowly will inevitably leave some 
> parties feeling 
> > that their chief concerns about accountability are not being 
> > addressed. It would be better to have a structured discussion that 
> > addresses the different dimensions in turn. And in this context 
> > (probably this is a rather orthogonal view), given the 
> larger global 
> > political debates---not only on JPA and in the IGF, but also in 
> > intergovernmental settings like CSTD/ECOSOC and the ITU (where the 
> > secretariat and quite a lot of governments are getting pretty 
> > aggressive about expanding its role in many aspects of Internet 
> > governance)---I would not side-step taking on the question of 
> > "accountability to governments" just because people find it odious.
> > Actually, I think that's a good reason to take it on.
> > 
> > On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> > 
> >> I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and 
> >> not getting their hands dirty.
> > 
> > So let's suggest a topic on which they would feel compelled to get 
> > their hands dirty, and thrash it out.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature