[Chapter-delegates] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANN document on Affirmation Reviews

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Bill,

let me join Christopeher Wilkinson and Louis Houle on this very important 
subject; it is great that you signalled it for attention.

Comments inline with your original:


On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Bill Graham wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:57:45 -0500
> From: Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org>
> To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Cc: ISOC Chapter Support <chapter-support at isoc.org>,
>     Executive Team <exec-team at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANN
>     	document on Affirmation Reviews
> 
> Dear all,
>
> I've carefully gone through the ICANN document "Affirmation Reviews: 
> Requirements and Implementation Processes," released 26/12/09, and available 
> here: <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev>. 
> I believe it would be appropriate and helpful for ISOC to comment on it.  It 
> is really 2 documents in 1.  The first part is a broad proposal for carrying 
> out the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN 
> and the US government.  The 2nd part is the draft terms of reference for the 
> first review called for by the Affirmation of Commitments: that is, a review 
> of ICANN's accountability, transparency and decision-making processes, that 
> is to be done by year end.
>
> Comments are due by the end of January, meaning I will have to complete and 
> send the document on January 29.  Because time is short, I thought I would 
> outline what I recommend ISOC would say here, and seek your views on a couple 
> of questions.

Very likely there is a slight extra margin in the deadline.

>
> The paper raises several questions for me, mostly related to the terms of 
> reference for the first review.  A primary issue is that I don't think that 
> the paper is clear about what the review is targeting.  The proposed terms of 
> reference does not suggest how they are going to define or to develop 
> definitions of accountability and transparency, or of the "public interest."


Bill, all, many different people and groups have used these three 
categories in interchangeable ways. During my years of ICANN experience 
I've seen complaints about lack of either or some or all depending on 
rather specific circumstances as well as on interests being hurt at times.

This does not detract from the general need to approach them. ISOC should 
make sure to adopt a principles-based approach and also be realistic at 
least in starting from the point of view that ICANN is already very high 
in accountability and transparency, far above other organizations with a 
claim of relevance for Internet Governance.

ISOC's contribution would be extremely valuable if we can provide a set of 
options on:

a. "accountability to whom?" i.e. exactly to whom ICANN owes different 
types and levels of accountability. Well-defined entities at this level 
will mean well-defined mechanisms, judges, and metrics. Just saying that 
ICANN must be accountable to the world as a whole doesn't cut it.

b. "how" i.e. being able to deal with the exact mechanics of 
accountability (without being overly prescriptive, of course.) This with 
the above has implications as to who is to be the judge as a proxy to the 
Internet community, to the non-connected 4 billion of humans, and so on. 
And we better know that whatever the result, it will be "multistakeholder" 
to boot. This does conflate the "how" with the "who will make the 
assessments" involved in the accountability.

> I had the impression during the Seoul meeting that work is needed within the 
> organization to formulate a clear understanding of what is meant by the 
> "public interest," and I believe that some clear definitional work is 
> essential if the review process is to help ICANN continue its positive 
> development.  As it is treated in the consultation document, "public 
> interest" could be seen as similar to "client satisfaction."  From an ISOC 
> perspective, that is much too narrow a conception, because it misses the 
> concept of ICANN's stewardship role over  a vital and shared global resource.


I fully agree here and this goes back to my argument. There is a level of 
accountability that can be reduced to "client satisfaction" and similar 
metrics (for the IANA function vis a vis its different clients such as the 
IETF, ccTLDs, etc.; for a larger public of registrants vis a vis policy 
compliance; and so on.)

But the stewardship of the global resource need be measured in a different 
way. It has to be measured in such a way that does not automatically lead 
to the view that the only legitimate representation of the peoples of the 
world, vis a vis the Internet, and in particular vis a vis ICANN's 
mission, is the UN and the organizations in its system.

So "the public interest" for ICANN can and must be defined rather strictly 
within ICANN's purview, the management of the DNS, IP allocation system, 
and protocol parameter registries, at the minimal-needed level of 
centralization. Its broader impact over the Internet cannot be denied but 
it has to be defined by the Internet community ourselves.

All mechanisms and definitions of accountability and public interest tht 
lead to a "higher" outside authority must be considered suspect.

> While the stakeholders and participants in ICANN processes are the ones to be 
> involved in the reviews, they must look always at what is best for the 
> Internet and for the broad community of Internet users world wide.  One other 
> comment making a similar point has already been made 
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/>, and that is the major 
> message I recommend ISOC make in its comments.
>
> In addition, because I trained and worked as an evaluation professional for 
> several years, I would propose to offer some technical/methodological 
> suggestions that I believe will be helpful, but because they are mechanical, 
> I won't go into them here.

Great; and I for one would like to know more about your views and input.

>
> In particular, I would appreciate hearing from you what elements you think 
> need to be included in definitions of accountability and transparency.  It 
> would also be helpful to have your comments on the proposed composition of 
> the review teams.  ICANN's paper is proposing that the teams be kept small 
> and composed of "representatives" of various ACs and SOs.  From your 
> experience, do you think this is achievable?  Is it practical to have 
> representatives from large and diverse groups who can accurately represent 
> the community's interests and views.  Do you agree with the recommended 
> approaches to carrying out the studies?

I do not think that doing this only with representatives works. There will 
be some magic passes to be performed in order to form panels without 
asking this from "higher authority" - similar trouble as we have 
experienced over the years in forming the Nominating Committee and other 
bodies. We can learn something. And we can recommend to look at the work 
of the NomCom Review (I'm in that working group and a final report is due 
very soon for public access.)

There are many in ISOC ready, able, and very well-suited to form part of 
the panels and to help, with additional stuff such as your input on 
evaluation, keep the proceedings at a high level, and in the Internet 
community's principled view.

>
> I would appreciate it if you share your remarks by end of your day, January 
> 27 at the latest.  Earlier responses would be much appreciated.
>

Didn't make the deadline but I hope this is useful.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

> And of course, I'd appreciate seeing a copy of any detailed comments you may 
> make directly to ICANN.
>
> best regards
>
> Bill
>
> ========================
> Bill Graham
> Global Strategic Engagement
> The Internet Society
> graham at isoc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>