resubmitting observations about process and scope for this review

[Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@xxxxxx>]

These comments were first submitted on 28 May

Paul Twomey

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:      Comments on process and parameter of review
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:01:07 +1000
> From: Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@XXXXXX>
> To:   comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
> My recommendations are two-part:
> 1. An exhortation to fully review all the accountability efforts taken by the 
> ICANN community since its formation so that all understand the amount of 
> thinking has occurred on these issues. ICANN is not where it is now by 
> accident, and for many coming into the space now it would be useful to 
> understand the debates over the years.
> 2. An extension of the review's parameters to address the "political halo" 
> aspects of the IANA contact.

> 1. The ICANN community has been discussing the issues of accountability since 
> before ICANN's formation. At the heart of that discussion is the balancing of 
> three accountabilities:
> - to act in the global public interest
> - to act in a way which empowers and reinforces bottom-up international 
> multi-stakeholder policy making
> - to act according to the law, particularly the well established and tough US 
> non-profit law
> 
> What is involved in exercising this balancing has been reflected in debates 
> and documents in ICANN's history; for instance, the Affirmation of 
> Accountabilities in 2010 and the ICANN Accountability and Transparency 
> Frameworks and Principles in 2008.  I would strongly urge for this process to 
> read these documents carefully as many of the issues being raised by the 
> review and comments were also discussed in these documents. There is real 
> value in capturing the history of the ICANN community's discussions and 
> efforts on accountability.   It is important to share with new members of the 
> ICANN community and with stakeholders more broadly that there has been at 
> least 15 years of debate and thinking and institutional development around 
> ICANN's accountability.  I observe that other responses to this comment 
> period have raised issues like membership which the ICANN community has 
> considered carefully

> 2. I note that the call for a review of accountability comes from community 
> calls during discussions around the IANA stewardship transition.
> I would urge the ICANN board to broaden this review to not only include 
> accountability, but to consider very carefully the international political 
> framework which would embrace ICANN in the next 15-20 years.
> It is very important to recognise that through its statements and diplomacy 
> over the last 15 years, the US government has contributed to a broader 
> political supportive framework for ICANN. This framework has been summarised 
> and symbolised by the IANA contract. Previous US administrations were 
> explicit about this. If the IANA contract is allowed to lapse, careful 
> thinking needs to be made as to how to ensure a politically supportive 
> framework for ICANN, especially over a period where the number of internet 
> users, Internet sites and domain names/numbers move from a North American 
> dominance to dominance elsewhere. Recognition should also be made that, as 
> recent Eastern European events have shown, sovereigns can decide to change 
> events very quickly. How to ensure broad political support for the ICANN 
> roles and a single root, or at least how to ensure a high enough political 
> price for shifting away from it, is an important part of carefully thinking 
> through ICANN's long term sustainability. The experience of WSIS, IGF and 
> even NetMundial has illustrated that in the battle between multi-stakeholder 
> supportive governments and governments which want sovereign dominance, ICANN 
> has benefited from sovereigns pushing back against other sovereigns. This 
> does not mean ICANN expand governments' role within ICANN policy making 
> processes - but it does behoove careful long-term thinking about ensuring 
> broader political "strength" around ICANN.
> The other side of the coin is that the US commitment through the IANA 
> contract has been seen by many, especially governments, as a form of backstop 
> function. A sense that if is under some very unlikely circumstances that 
> ICANN were to become inoperable or seized by a particular interest group than 
> the US would have some responsibility for resolving the problem.  This is not 
> what is written in the IANA contract, but again, it is part of the "political 
> halo" which has surrounded the agreement. So I would urge very careful 
> consideration of these political perceptions in the discussion about the IANA 
> functions transitions and the accountability review.
> Yours sincerely,
> Paul Twomey
> (Former GAC chair and former CEO)



Sent from my iPad