<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thanks for the response Ian.
<br>
<br>
I am a bit occupied and will give more detailed comments a little
later. <br>
<br>
However I want to make it clear right away that no one is suggesting
that ICANN's remit be broadened. Not at all. We are talking about a
global Internet council like body which will do the oversight of ICANN
and the nature its remit. The two are very different issues. Pl see the
paper by Milton I enclosed in my last email to see how oversight of
ICANN is connected to all other public policy issues in the area of
Internet. Also pl see WGIG report for models 1 and 3 where such an
ICANN oversight body takes up other public policy issues, so it is not
that people do not generally understand that the linkage is important. <br>
<br>
To state it in short, and using your terms, it is not about thick or
thin ICANN, it is about 'thick' or 'thin' ICANN oversight models, which
are two very different things.<br>
<br>
> </font>Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs some
better structures. <br>
<br>
Yes, for ICANN, names and numbers are enough. No one is proposing going
beyond that. The main problem is about what you call as 'the rest'
needing better structures (1) this 'rest' is the important issue and we
need to be talking about what could be 'better structures' now, and (2)
importantly, this 'rest' is connected to oversight of names and
numbers as Milton argues, which is the whole logic of oversight (if
these other public policy issues were not connected in some way to
names and numbers then no one will have any problems letting ICANN do
what it does without any oversight). <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font><br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C628BD7D.1BE9%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well I have more problems with the model than you do Parminder. A few
comments interspersed below.
On 7/05/09 2:15 PM, "Parminder" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU
proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society,
while
looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the
specific
model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this
stage. (Ian)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it
there, people might want to know what they are. Is it that with
respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight
G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or
how decisions would be arrived at? That it's a plurilateral rather
than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could
become a political nightmare? That the precise relationship to and
implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear? That the role of
nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear? That the process of
devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...?
(Bill)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a
lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill
lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of
getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which
of course is important. More important however is having some idea about
our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and
communicating them.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Agreed.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International
Tribunal adjudicating ICAN related issues rather than Californian
courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which
case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored a workshop on 'Trans-national
Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that
need adjudication came up..
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Most of those issues from my memory were about cybercrime. I would not like
to see cybercrime type issues mixed up with ICANN style administrative
issues on domain management.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now when there is a clear proposal by one of
the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU
backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what
obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area.
Has anyone a better suggestion?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A
single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea
of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related
issues of global IG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I have a problem with this word related, because I have a problem with the
mandate of ICANN being extended into related areas. I don't think ICANN is
the model for cybercrime, and to be honest I would like to see its mandate
smaller rather than larger. Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs
some better structures. In ICANN this used to be the thick vs thin ICANN
model debate - I am definitely on the side of thin.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to
analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a
common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our
issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the
best way to go forward on this.
The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society
come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by
suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is
important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society
participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be
present in a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would
that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that
the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives
credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on
the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose,
but about this later.)
Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries.
This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20 etc but more like UN
bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I
think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification.
However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more
representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if
it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I am happy for governmental input to be G12 or G20 or whatever they agree
to. What concerns me more is the model that leans towards an industry body
with a government regulator. We have lots of these in most countries. That
to me would be a huge backward step for the transboundary issues, but I
suspect it might be the way the model might evolve unless we look at why
that's not appropriate in this space.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very
narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other
key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present
are 'solved', if at all, in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving
the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do
include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that
Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global
governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/
or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The
enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very
good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked
other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument
I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to
be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As I said I favour the thin ICANN model. I think a lot more analysis of
issues and appropriate governance structures for areas needs to be
undertaken. Consumer input is particularly important here, there are a range
of other civil society issues that need a vehicle for input as structures
evolve.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy
body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this
too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I would think that if the "thick" G12 model was adopted and ICANN acquiesced
to that IGF might close down. I think that would be very problematic because
ICANN cannot and should not deal with a lot of the issues that need to be
addressed.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>