Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Nicolas Adam]

Absolutely.

But with regards the practical problem at hand ― i.e. to solve the 
legitimacy/accountability problem that's arising from the transition,

by either

i) embedding checks and balance at the foundation level of an entity 
which can then perhaps sometimes expand on its ability to make rules in 
related areas;

or,

ii) by denying the need for such a precise formulation at the 
foundational level with contracts that expressly limit the entity's scope

― it seems to me that ii) is more efficient.

It doesn't preclude counter-hegemonic actions and discourses either. But 
unless the foundational terms proposed are so awesome (like, I don't 
know, direct democracy maybe?) ... and it doesn't seem that way when one 
reads the blog post, then its probably best to just say "this is a 
contract giving you the root that its *not* ok to use it to actively 
enforce other things!"

We will invoke public interest plenty of times in the future, and so 
will every other actor in this political battle of representation over 
what the public interest is. But let's also face it because I think this 
is an important question, perhaps the only one:

what progressive uses of the ability to use the root as an enforcer of 
things related could there be?

And, as a corollary

what reactionary uses of the ability to use the root as an enforcer of 
things related could there be?




On 23/12/2014 12:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu 
>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, if you pay careful attention to ICANN's past 5-8 years you 
>> find that the term is most commonly used by the BC and most 
>> frequently invoked by GAC, Steve DelBianco and Marilyn Cade, usually 
>> to justify policies that we don't support
>
> To me this is an argument for contesting and hopefully 
> re-appropriating the term in line with a coherent vision that reflects 
> our values, rather for than dismissing the concept as inherently 
> flawed and to be avoided (which it will not be).  This is precisely 
> where civil society should be weighing in forcefully with 
> counter-hegemonic discourse, rather than letting others control things 
> by default because nobody bothers to push back.
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141223/7c85acbd/attachment.htm>