The FCC has many revolving doors. It's not necessarily a great example of "checks and balances", despite the various regulations articulated in your post. DeeDee On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org