<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Comment on "Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures"
- To: <asep-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>, <apisan@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Comment on "Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures"
- From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:26:31 -0600
To whom it may concern:
in response to the Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's
Accountability Structures:
1. The Recommendations go a long way into establishing clear processes,
placing the burden of the proof in complaints at the right place, and
creating a commitment by all parties to the results of the processes
they engage in.
2. If ICANN does follow the Recommendations it will be taking steps to
establish the equivalent of a permanent judiciary power, with many
components like the BGC, Omnibus Panel, etc. This is a momentous step.
It may engender a new power structure within ICANN and there are
incentives in the system which may make this power become entrenched.
While the RySG comment asks for more rotation in the integration of
these judiciary instances and claims that enough legal knowledge,
uncoupled from subject-matter knowledge, is enough to sit on them, the
practice one can forecast is that previous experience in the panels will
become an asset. All parties - ICANN and those contesting ICANN
decisions - will have an interest in retaining people who have already
acted in these decisions, for the sake of expediency, reducing the
learning curve, and the consequent predictability of the decisions they
arrive at.
This is to be kept in mind as the Board goes forward creating this new
institutional space.
3. The proposed system does indeed carry the incentive the RySG comment
proposes: less and less substantial subject-matter knowledge, more and
more legal and procedural knowledge. This may be fundamentally wrong.
4. A look at how the Recommendations could be implemented - forms,
timing, people, traceability, accountability, etc. suggests that a
significant growth of bureaucracy can be forecasted. The complexity of
all decisions, keeping track of conflicts of interest, and so on, may
require more dedicated personnel, more legal advice in order to reduce
post-hoc litigation, etc. Consequently also this set-up increases the
risk aversion and with it will make ICANN look, yes, more fair, maybe,
more predictable, but surely, more bureaucratic and slow. I hope that
the Board finds a way to implement the positive aspects of the
Recommendations without incurring in these higher costs for the
organization.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|