Subject: Question 1
From: guest@socialtext.net
Date: 2011-01-14 08:29:13 GMT
Received: from 61.113.174.133
Revision: 14
Type: wiki
Summary: 1. Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN's actions were not taken in an accountable manner. From Avri:
Encoding: utf8
Revision-Summary: (comment)
Locked: 0
1. Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner? If so, please provide specific information as to the circumstances and indicate why you believe ICANN's actions were not taken in an accountable manner.
From Avri:
The ICANN Policy 'Support' Staff has operated in a very non accountable way in all of its dealing with the Board on "behalf' of the rest of the volunteer community. Instead of serving as a reliable broker, it has a well established practice of send secret reports to the Board on policy and on SO and AC affairs. On a few occasions when those reports have become known, they proved to contain falsehoods. It is impossible to know whether the falsehoods are due to errors or strategy, but they were nevertheless false. And whether the false statements were accidental or intentional, the community never has a chance to review what is written or to respond.
The community has frequently asked for these secret reports to made public - especially those that pertain to the activities and decision making of the SOs and ACs, with the understanding that there are occasionally issues that need to be private, but the Policy 'Support' Staff has mostly not responded to the requests let alone opened itself up to scrutiny and accountability. It is impossible to know how many board decisions were based on faulty information and all private memos from the last year's must to be made public and open to public scrutiny if ICANN is ever to be considered an accountable and transparent institution.
contributed by avri@acm.org on 2010-06-14 17:45:19 GMT
From Mary W.:
Answering the question: yes and yes (see Q2 below). I also agree with Avri that it is critically important for the community to be able to review and, if necessary, respond to, inaccurate statements about it and/or its work. Within this multi-stakeholder, bottom-up organization, the default position should be openness (disclosure), with those exceptional legitimate instances where opaqueness (non-disclosure) is utilized being disclosed in advance.
contributed by mwong@piercelaw.edu on 2010-06-22 14:27:41 GMT
From Wendy:
No. ICANN should be accountable to its stakeholders, but it is not currently.
I would like the ATRT group to review the Non-Commerical Charter discussions at the Board, in particular the staff memoranda summarizing public comment at various stages.
contributed by wendy@seltzer.com on 2010-06-22 17:00:39 GMT
—
ICANN has not been accountable to the global community on why it has taken seven years since the formalisation of 2003 IDNA standards for IDN TLDs to be rolled out.
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-07-01 07:51:44 GMT
—
xiaoniaoer
healthcool
financecool
shanqiu
answerlogs
answerswindo
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2011-01-04 03:31:08 GMT
—
wisefollow
Gucci Purses
Gucci Wallets
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2011-01-14 08:29:13 GMT
