<!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">
<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it.
By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties.
Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Milton<br>
<br>
Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is
all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for
instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who
makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we
agree that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough
for the present purpose. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D77B1A7D03@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ian
Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I
think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together.
However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">raised in
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">my email of Friday the 29th.
In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">not
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">are
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">is
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is the real division.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I said in my quoted email
"For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">than
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
agree on, no?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
internationalization of oversight of ICANN
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm</a>
Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
compatriots.
If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
, and submit to the outcomes of
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the same."
I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">think
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">clear
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have a caucus
statement that does not take this into account.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">We can, in fact. Anything you can imagine is possible.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as 'an
independent ICANN'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
(The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
independent ICANN)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">yes, they apparently do see it this way.
However, this, to me is a misnomer. When they talk about "private
sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
organisations, what we call CS orgs.
In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
would be useful.
<snip>
really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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>