RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs
- To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs and ACs
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:03:51 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.1.11
> 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.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding topics for open discussion amongst SOs
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>
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
> 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.