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