I wouldn't dismiss Prof. Hofmann out of hand. She's been involved as a
participant in IG discussions (like IGF) for a number of years, and her
background is specifically in political science, not just generic social
science.
As for "government types" there are a few things that the MSM community
might learn from other democratic models. One can only hope these experts
might appeal to them.
Let me run down a short incomplete list that comes from the study of
political science.
* One problem with legislative/regulatory models is the phenomenon of
Industry Capture, where a well-funded lobbying entity will develop close
ties to regulators to affect policy outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
If one considers ICANN staff to have significant influence over policy
implementation and application, or even to influence the dynamics of
policy-making itself, then one must consider the possibility of "narrow
stakeholder capture of ICANN staff" as a counterpart. This could create a
"back door" access to policy influence to reinforce the "front door"
participation of stakeholders in the SOACs.
* One of the common characteristics of such dynamics is called the Iron
Triangle (lobbyists, legislators, regulators).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29
In the ICANN variant, perhaps there are only two corners rather than three.
* One symptom of such relationships is a common complaint known as the
Revolving Door, where staff members may come from or go to jobs in the
industry sector trying to apply influence (when staff become lobbyists,
that's a big red flag).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29
I don't know if ICANN staff hiring patterns reflect this or not. If so it
would raise serious concerns that somebody is trying to have a nice big
back door to ensure they get their way. And they want to keep it a secret.
* There are precedents for pushing back at these sorts of things. One is
from the US FCC, in its "ex parte" rules, which require public reporting of
communications between interested parties and FCC regulators involving
substantive matters of regulatory policy.
http://www.fcc.gov/exparte
Sanctions for violating these rules (especially including failure to report
relevant communications) can involve disciplinary or remedial action
(presumably up and including dismissal). External stakeholders can be
denied standing in the regulatory proceeding.
This sounds like a good idea for ICANN staff, too. Let's have no statute
of limitations on sanctioning violations. We may even want to make it
fully retroactive prior to establishment of such a policy.
* The US Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has a provision that requires
executive agencies involved in new rulemaking proceedings to provide a
period of public comments, but also to require the agency to take those
comments into account in a substantive manner. If they disagree with any
widespread points of view among comments, they have to justify that
disagreement structurally, can't just dismiss them or ignore them, even if
they go so far as to acknowledge them, or even analyze their content. See
example again from the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rulemaking-process-fcc
Especially this paragraph: "Any final rule must include an explanatory
preamble and the rule text. The preamble includes a response to the
significant, relevant issues raised in public comments and a statement
providing the basis and the purpose (i.e., an explanation) of the rule. The
Commission is not required to respond to each commenter; similar comments
may be grouped together with an opening statement such as "several
commenters suggested that" or the commenters may be referred to by name."
Wouldn't that be a nice thing for ICANN staff to adopt, too?
* Finally, and this is *really* pie-in-the-sky, one thing our
representative democracy got right was the concept of separation and
balance of powers, in particular the establishment of a genuinely
independent judiciary.
What a thing it would be if there were a completely separate division of
ICANN, reporting directly to the Board (not through the other CEO, like
Fadi) with its own independent budget drawn from a fixed proportion of
total ICANN revenues, to handle all dispute resolution, ombudsman, etc.,
functions.
So, people in the "traditional" world of democratic governance have been
trying to tackle these serious issues along the way, and while they have
not reached perfection, it still seems as if some of these ideas are worth
applying to MSM as well, given the inevitability of human flaws and some
similarities in the ways governance structures can break down in the
presence of such flaws.
In the effort to try to reinvent the wheel, perhaps you don't have throw
the baby out with the bathwater. I hope that MSM proponents will take a
serious look at these sorts of ideas, because there is no reason to expect
that MSM models are somehow immune to these kinds of human pitfalls. And
they can't be effectively addressed on an ad hoc case-by-case basis. It
needs a structural approach in order to be effective.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 9:30 PM -0400 8/19/14, Edward Morris wrote:
>Although it is obviously good to have Brian selected as one of the four
>'wise men' (albeit gender balanced men) this list is disappointing. All of
>those selected are inside the IG bubble. We're trying to create
>accountability and governance rules for a private corporation and we have
>two government types, a decent academic whose background is in social
>science and Brian, the only person selected with any experience running
>any sort of organisation.
>
>As predicted, ICANN seems to have first selected the individuals and then
>selected the categories from which they were to be selected. Not one of
>these individuals has any acknowledged expertise in governance or
>accountability outside of the IG bubble. All are from Europe or the United
>States.
>
>Top down internet governance. I'm far from impressed. These are not the
>people I'd select to help create an accountability structure for a
>California public benefits corporation. But what do I know? I'm only the
>bottom of a bottom up structure that apparently no longer exists.
>
>( Do we even know who specifically selected these people? Do we know the
>criteria that was used? Do we know what criteria these selectees are
>supposed to use in selecting CG members?)
>
>Ed
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:36:49 -0400
>Subject: Fwd: [ianatransition] ICANN Accountability & Governance Public
>Experts Group Members Announced
>
>
>for those not on any of the IANA whatever lists.
>
>avri
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [ianatransition] ICANN Accountability & Governance Public
>Experts Group Members Announced
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:08:05 +0000
>From: Grace Abuhamad
><<mailto:grace.abuhamad%40icann.org>[log in to unmask]>
>To: <mailto:ianatransition%40icann.org> [log in to unmask]
><<mailto:ianatransition%40icann.org> [log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>Please see original announcement
>at
><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en
>
>
> ICANN Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group Members Announced
>
>
>As described in the 14 August 2014 posting of
>the Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps
><<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en>
>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en >,
>four
>respected individuals with backgrounds in academia, governmental
>relations, global insight, and the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC),
>will form the Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group.
>
>Selected by ICANN's President and CEO, Fadi Chehadé, members of the
>Public Experts Group will be responsible for the *selection of up to
>seven Advisors to sit on the Coordination Group* to assure that best
>practices are brought from the larger global community. Once selected by
>the Public Experts Group, these Advisors will contribute research and
>advice, as well as bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich
>the discussion, all while engaging with a broader network of
>accountability experts from around the world.
>
>The members of the Public Experts Group are:
>
> * *Brian Cute*
>
> CEO of The Public Interest Registry and Chair of ICANN's first and
> second Accountability and Transparency Review Teams
> <<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability-2012-02-25-en>
>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability-2012-02-25-en >
>(ATRT).^1
> <<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en#foot1>
>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en#foot1>
>
> * *Jeanette Hofmann*
>
> Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society,
> in Berlin, Germany. She also conducts research at the Social Science
> Research Center Berlin. She represented the academic community as
> one of four co-chairs of the NETmundial Global Multistakeholder
> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil,
> in April 2014.
>
> * *Ambassador Janis Karklins*
>
> Latvian Ambassador. Chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> (MAG); former Chairman of the Governmental Advisory
> Committee, GAC Liaison to the ICANN Board and co-selector of the ATRT1.
>
> * *Lawrence E. Strickling*
>
> NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and
> Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce; and member of both
> ATRT1 and ATRT2.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>^1 <<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en#note1>
>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en#note1>
> Mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), the ATRT is a team of
>community representatives responsible for reviewing ICANN's
>accountability, transparency and pursuit of the interests of global
>Internet users on a recurring basis.
>
>
>
|
