ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[iic-proposed-bylaws]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Accountability

  • To: iic-proposed-bylaws@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Accountability
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:18:24 -0700 (PDT)

(1) Regarding the proposed new section 5 of Article IV of the ICANN Bylaws:  

Requiring a two‐thirds majority vote of the Councils of two‐thirds of ICANN’s 
Supporting Organizations (GNSO, ccNSO, or ASO) "and" a two‐thirds majority vote 
of the "members" of "each" Advisory Committee (GAC, SSAC, RSSAC and ALAC) is a 
grossly excessive requirement to impose upon a community whose sole interest 
lies in asking for a reexamination of a Board decision taken by resolution. 

One can't help but get the impression that the Board is so very desperate to 
remain unaccountable that it has crafted the most unreasonable set of hurdles 
to thwart the possibility of any challenge to board-level decision-making. 

(2)  Regarding the proposed changes that would create the Independent Review 
Body:

It is shockingly premature to be crafting new bylaws to replace the Independent 
Review Process when the very first IRP case to be heard by the International 
Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICMregistry-v-ICANN) hasn't been concluded.  As 
you are aware, IRP hearings in Washington are ongoing with final arguments to 
be presented at the end of this week.  Likely there will be an additional 
period of time involved before the ICDR renders its final conclusions.

Why replace that which hasn't yet even had a chance to be evaluated?  It would 
clearly be far more logical to defer action on these proposed bylaws changes 
until such time as we can take stock regarding the efficaciousness and 
desirability of the current Independent Review Process.

(3)  Please be aware of the fact that the community has availed itself of 
recourse to the U.S. Government so often because it no longer has confidence in 
ICANN's decision-making.  The massive outpouring of comments in regards to the 
proposed new gTLD "open-the-floodgates" approach should be indicative of the 
fact that as a Board, you no longer have our trust.  

As you reflect upon appropriate accountability measures, ask yourselves as 
board members whether your own oversight has been sufficient.  From my vantage 
point, you have been making far too many bad judgments for far too long and are 
now at a point where prompt and efficient external accountability mechanisms 
are indeed required.

best wishes,
Danny Younger


      




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>