AW: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?)

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Couldn´t this embedded in the discussion on IG & MS principles which will take place in the two plenaries in Bali on IGF Day 2? (9.30 - 13.00/Main Hall). And on Day 1 we have he plenary organized by the Brazilian government on the role of governments in IG. BTW, this Brazilian session is a left over from the Geneva WTPF (May 2013) and it is interesting to note that the Brazilian government did choose the IGF as one of the three options for a continuation of the Geneva debate. (The two other options where the ITU Council IG Working Group and the WGEC) 
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von John Curran
Gesendet: Do 10.10.2013 07:17
An: Ian Peter; Lee W McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?)


+1 as well (I believe a fairly focused discussion would be helpful, as long 
as the expectation is that it would be an exercise in exploration of issues) 

/John

On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:


	+1
	
________________________________

	From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter..com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ]
	Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:17 PM
	To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran
	Subject: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?)
	
	
	I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach that will have universal approval.
	 
	What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance.
	 
	It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group - if it starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that these wider issues are not important).
	 
	For me - I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body - it just needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As regards the wider oversight function - I dont personally think it can be resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns there.
	 
	Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role as regards IANA function.  That might be an achievable quick win that would also draw support from other stakeholder groups.
	 
	 
	Ian Peter
	 



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t