[At-Large] ICANN oversight
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 02:20:09 UTC 2015
+1. Couldn't say better.
I say this further. What is being proposed only marginalize further those
of us already at the edge.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:40 AM Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Dear Parminder,
> my personal point of view is that whilst I am comfortable with some
> additional accountability measures to be ingrained in ICANN's DNA in
> order to prevent the Board from going rogue, I am very uncomfortable
> with giving all of the power to the Community to overrule the Board
> *without additional checks and balances imposed on the community too*.
> Some aspects of the community proposal would effectively create a shadow
> Board that would overrule the ICANN Board and this shadow Board would
> have no accountability mechanisms whatsoever. It would not be bound to
> all of the reviews which the ICANN Board is bound to. It would not have
> any appeal mechanism. It would not have any fiduciary responsibility and
> liability. Nothing. The shadow Board would be the most direct way to
> capture and to use as a tool to blackmail ICANN into doing things that
> it should not do.
> I'll repeat Larry Strickling's words, which I agree with 100%: "Why is
> it that so many in the ICANN community feel that a Board member which
> they have appointed THEMSELVES turns into a pariah the moment he/she is
> appointed? "
> And do not tell me that SOs & ACs have no say in the appointment of
> NomCom appointed Board members: the NomCom is made up of people from the
> community appointed by their SOs and ACs. NomCom members work together
> to find the best people for ICANN.
> On the topic of needing to have a set of accountability mechanisms that
> create a legal entity so that the mechanisms can be enforced in a court,
> I am even more unhappy. "Enforced in a court" means "enforced in a US
> Court" - have you ever checked the cost of US lawyers? Only the rich
> will be able to do that. The ALAC has no chance whatsoever to use that
> mechanism. Then I am told, "no, ICANN will fund both parties in the
> lawsuit" - WOW, what a great tool to destroy the organisation by suing
> itself and depleting itself of all resources it has by paying lawyers
> ad-infinitum to inflict itself wounds. Really?
> A shadow Board, self appointed, with no checks and balances, would only
> serve those with the money and time to spend 24/7 on ICANN issues. Pure
> volunteers like the ALAC would not have the time to spend on this,
> leaving only those with a direct vested interest (and being paid for it)
> being able to spend the time on this. If you want to hand over ICANN
> control to corporate interests and the domain name industry (in its
> widest sense) from rich English-speaking countries then agree to the
> current proposals as they stand. I do not want to see that.
> The Board has a duty to balance the points of view in the community and
> make sure the weaker parts of the community are also supported. A shadow
> board will just be the perfect environment for loud mouths, bullies and
> deep pockets.
> Kindest regards,
> (as I said, just my personal views)
> On 10/10/2015 12:13, parminder wrote:
> > I cannot but note with considerable surprise and disappoinment that when
> > everyone with any thing ever to do with ICANN is currently hotly
> > debating the issue of the stand off between the ICANN board and CCWG on
> > ICANN accountability, ALAC remains so aloof from the issue.... When this
> > should prima facie be the one part of the ICANN structure, as
> > representing the peripheries, that should be most bothered by efforts at
> > concentration of power, or of holding on it, vis a vis the rights of
> > the public.
> > I have not been able to follow the process closely, but if I am right
> > -and please correct me if I am not - even in the earlier discussions
> > ALAC has been most lukewarm to any kind of structural changes that could
> > indeed place an effective oversight of the 'community' over the ICANN
> > board, when as said ALAC is the one group that should be most keen on
> > institutionalising such checks over centralisation of power with the
> > ICANN board. Can anyone explain me why it is so. It really intrigues me,
> > and I am sure I am missing something here.
> > Thanks, parminder
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large