<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks for sending this Parminder.
When you talk about the 'UN system' entering into an agreement with the
US and ICANN, which part of it did you have in mind?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Anriette<br>
<br>
This has deliberately been kept vague so that a range of options remain
open. It is clear to us that whether it is an external oversight or
accountability framework, it can only be mediated through a UN body.
With all our problems with the UN, it is still the only legitimate
global governance system. After all the human rights framework is also
UN. We were afraid that mentioning any particular body now would shift
the debate to the merits of that particular body doing this. At present
the issue is for the US gov to accept to commit itself to move towards
legitimate multilateralism in the spirit of WSIS documents. Once such
political will is established, the right way forward can always be
figured out. We do expect the US to do some hard bargaining and keep
some/ considerable leverage on how things move forward. <br>
<br>
I think it has to be some place in the ECOSOC; am not too good on this
kind of stuff. UN SG's office do not have the substantive capacity I
think, or may be I am wrong. However, I am very sure it cannot and
should not be the ITU. ITU is not based on core democratic principles
of broad public interest governance, and its structures are more like a
standards body, which it was supposed to be. Also it is important to
appreciate that we are not talking about replacing ICANN, in which case
ITU may figure, but about political oversight of ICANN, which has to be
much broader but less busy public policy/ governance system. ICANN,
with due modifications, should keep doing the technical management
functions it does at present.<br>
<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1244404251.4224.505.camel@anriette-laptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And, on a related thought, I wonder if the ITU will be submitting
comment to the NTIA?
Anriette
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 12:05 +0530, Parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IT for Change is planning to submit to the following comments on JPA.
These comments are premised on our belief that what we are looking for
here is a *major* political decision from the highest level of the US
government, and not merely an administrative change. Therefore, the
principal appeal we make has to be strongly political, pitched to the
highest principles of fairness and justice, and of globally democratic
governance for global issues. The best way to do so is to remind the
US government of its commitments at the WSIS, and point out how these
commitments call for specific actions by the US government as the JPA
comes to an end. It is accordingly also important to connect the
post-JPA arrangement to the corresponding elements in the Tunis Agenda
that all have agreed to - the 'enhanced cooperation' framework. We
are a bit surprised as to why the comments of even the actors who are
opposed to JPA as well as to a free-float ICANN are not focusing on
the obvious space that has some (significant) existing recognition and
legitimacy, and was always meant as an exercise, inter alia, to create
post-JPA oversight mechanisms.
Text of the proposed statement
Speaking as a civil society organization from a developing country, we
are impressed by the stance taken by the present US administration on
issues related to perceptions as well as facts of US hegemony in
various global affairs. The most recent pronouncement by President
Obama in his address at the Cairo University attests to this
refreshing approach which promises a new role for the US in managing
our collective global affairs, and a new perception of the US among
other countries and people.
“No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear
weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to
seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
It is, in this context, important that the US government recognizes
that a unilateral control of critical Internet resources exercised by
the US is not tenable, and greatly contributes to the 'hegemonistic'
image of the US, and its pursuance of what President Obama rightly
called as 'double standards'. The outcome documents of the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), to which US government is a
signatory, recognized this as the application of 'principle of
universality' for Internet governance. The summit asserted that that
'all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
international Internet governance'. 'The international management of
the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic,with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
and international organizations'.
The WSIS also called for a process of 'enhanced cooperation' to be
initiated, inter alia, to deal with the issue of legitimate oversight
mechanisms for critical Interent resources. This process should have
been initiated by the UN Secretary General in early 2006. Apparently,
it is difficult to get on with this process without some clear helpful
signs from the US government which holds the oversight power at
present, including through the JPA. It will be most befitting the new
approach of Obama administration for it to signal its desire to begin
the process of 'enhanced cooperation' towards developing legitimate
oversight mechanisms as per WSIS principles, and in a manner that
address the legitimate interests of all countries and people,
including of the US.
As for the possibility of allowing ICANN to subsist without any
oversight mechanism, we are strongly against any industry-led
regulatory system which, in our view, is an oxymoron. The limits of
self-regulation in areas of key public interest have been shown by the
recent banking fiasco which is bringing untold miseries all over the
world. We are therefore of the firm view that ICANN does require
external oversight.
The best way forward therefore is to annul the current JPA, and enter
into a new trilateral agreement between ICANN, US and the UN system to
start a process towards 'development of globally-applicable principles
on public policy issues associated with the coordination and
management of critical Internet resources'(as agreed at the WSIS) and
also developing appropriate institutional mechanisms of oversight over
ICANN, in its tasks of technical management of CIRs. This process, as
called for by the WSIS, should be, to repeat, 'multilateral,
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,
the private sector, civil society and international organizations'.
(text ends)
parminder
plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
____________________________________________________________
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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>