ICANN accountability Working Group: Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments?

[Konrad von Finckenstein <finckenstein@xxxxxxxxx>]

​
Accountability of ICANN


I read with interest the proposed procedure to improve ICANN accountability.
Notwithstanding the numerous internal accountability mechanism within ICANN it
strikes me that ICANN can ultimately only be held accountable by:

a)       the US if it breaches the Affirmation of Commitments  or

b)       by the California courts if it violates the legislation permitting
the incorporation of non profit corporations.



Regardless of who becomes the counter signatory of the Affirmation of
Commitments it will not satisfy all nations or international bodies. I
think we should we take advantage of some of the unique features of the net
to forestall their takeover ambitions. We should think outside the box of
existing structures.



 Given that we have now the ability to reach every user of the net, I think
 the importation of some direct democracy principles should be considered.
I fully realize that direct democracy by voting on line is not ready for
prime time right now . There are a host technical, definitional and
security issues that need to be solved e.g. Who is qualified to vote, on
what issues, how to prevent fraud, vote packing etc.
However given the fact we now at least theoretically have the ability to
reach every user of the internet , this issue should be explored. All the
problems are technical or operational but not conceptual. A democratic vote
as the ultimate decision maker will be a powerful tool to counter any
attempt by governments or international institutions to take over ICANN .



Rather than trying to involve every user one could  build the system on
very website owner. Through the registrars and WHOIS  this is a defineable,
ascertainable and verifiable  universe. By way of  theoretical construct
one could envision the following scheme.



*Electorate*: All web site owners existing 6 month prior to the date of the
vote are entitled to vote. The 6 month qualifying period is there to avoid
last minute vote packing through the creation of new web sites. voting  .

*Issues subject to the vote*:

   1. Ratification  of revised Affirmation of Commitments
   2. Matters submitted by the Board of ICANN for ratification
   3. Any issue petitioned by 25 of web site owners
   4. Amendment of ICANN’s  charter

*Form of voting*: by email ballot

*Counter of ballot*: International Accounting firm such as Deloittes hired
by ICANN







Obviously a lot of work would have to go into process to ensure technical
efficiency, preventing fraud and tampering, verifying eligibility etc. But
none of this is impossible. And the closer the ICANN comes to resemble some
form of world government of the internet ( given that it is dealing with
non technical issues such as privacy) the more some democratic ultimate
accountability and consequent approval is needed. Any such mechanism would
also be a perfect answer to moves by international bodies ( be it the ITU
or another body)   to bring ICANN under its control.



I would suggest that the mandate for the working group should include:
Examining and proposing  a system  of direct democracy whereby  ICANN is
ultimately accountable to its users
​ by means of electronic vote. ​
.











Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C.

​ Ottawa, Ontario



<http://www.neesonchambers.com>