[At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 2 16:59:50 UTC 2022

"Sorry you asked?" (Evan Leibovitch)

Quite the contrary... I am absolutely delighted.... This is an excellent
set of initial , foundational principles, and I give my whole-heated
support to them.

Not only that, I am happy to explore working with you, as IT for Change
and for the global coalition Just Net Coalition to  develop them further
and do fining-tune, polishing, detailing, etc, through an international
working group made from both the digital activist field and global NGOs
and movements in different sectors from across the world. And following
development of a common set of principles, take side global sign ons
from public interest groups from all over the world. I assure you that
we would get imagined support and endorsements.

In fact I invite you to be the convenor of this group ... I am happy to
also explore some basic funding for this project, from, transparent
bonafide public interest funders, mostly like some western foundation or
something ... And we can start almost right now ... What do you say ...

best, parminder

On 02/01/22 9:56 pm, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 04:30, parminder via At-Large
> <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
>     Evan, since I like to look forward, that also makes me ask you --
>     what would be your conception of a publicly accountable ICANN..
>     No, i dont need the full architecture... Just what was missing and
>     what should be, at a larger framework level . But it is fine if
>     you havent thought about it yet in that way.. . thanks, parminder
> Getting further off-topic, but now entertaining. Like Olivier, I
> enjoyed Barry's Usenet history and was brought back to days of Telebit
> modems, UUCP, and the nightly news dump. I myself ran some of those
> newsgroup elections, and was an occasional colleague of one of those
> demi-gods, Henry Spencer from the University of Toronto. I recall
> things being more structured than Barry did, thanks to the loose
> assembly of demigods known as the "Cabal"
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal>.
> But... back to Parminder's question. Bashing is easy, constructive
> solutions are always far tougher. I don't have a coherent and complete
> architecture, but there are a few principles I would like in a
> re-envisioned domain manager/regulator. I really can't separate these
> into "accountability" and "non accountability" measures since there's
> at least some A&T rationale baked into all of them:
>   * Fuller (ie, complete) separation of ICANN's technical and
>     political roles. That means that issues such as root-server
>     coordination and security are better handled by groups like IETF
>   * A governance model such that the public interest comprises the
>     decision-makers and the industry players are advisors. This of
>     course represents a 180-degree swap of the current situation in
>     ICANN but is more in line with normal governance elsewhere.
>   * A "use it or lose it" regime for domains similar to what exists
>     for trademarks, complete with aggressive anti-squatting policy
>     (OK, maybe this one doesn't have much to do with A&T but it's
>     critical)
>   * The price governments pay for a seat at this table is making
>     domain use and allocation subject to a treaty that ensures
>     interoperability and heavily constrains domain takedowns. That
>     would avoid bullshit such as the "Universal Acceptance"
>     initiative, which was created to beg the world to honour ICANN's
>     policies because right now everything is taken in (diminishing)
>     good faith. A treaty would also eliminate ICANN's coy "we're not a
>     regulator" whining and enable credible enforcement.
>   * Creation of a financial model such that the org that regulates
>     domain names isn't dependent on their volume or rental fees for
>     its sustainability
>   * And finally, a Nominating Committee that actually *nominates*.
>     That is, it creates a slate of names for consideration by electors
>     rather than choosing the winners itself. I like the CIRA
>     dual-slate model that allows for a Nomination Committee slate
>     while enabling a second slate of "nominations from the floor" for
>     people who are popular but shunned by the NomCom.
> Sorry you asked?
> - Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20220102/494b0b71/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list