<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">i think between the lines,
GAC's role has (will) become rather decisive... GAC chair has a big
role in setting up supervisory, yet called review, bodies. I feel that
in practice, at least by and by, these supervisory structures will
begin to exercise more power.... I have still to read the original docs
well..... But this looks like as a good a move towards
internationalization that looked feasible under present conditions, at
least as a first step...<br>
<br>
We have structures of review/supervision, but no clear principles for
it (for ex, what constitutes public interest, which is stressed a
lot). So space and opportunity remains for 'evolving globally
applicable public policy principles' by the 'enhanced cooperaiton'
process which then frames the working of these review/ supervisory
structures .... this can, and I think, should be the direction
forward....<br>
<br>
i have not read earlier ICANN papers, but I am not sure if they spoke
so much of the multistakeholder term, I am not sure but suspect that
they mostly stuck to 'private'... Is there more of the mutlistakeholder
term in the present doc....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
Willie Currie wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org" type="cite">Ok, so the
main shift is the establishment of four review processes which will
assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year cycles. The
review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair or CEO and
the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of the US DoC
in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased role for the
GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of oversight -
the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and
posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months
of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is no
enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is not
obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have
the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not
the instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the
Affirmation by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private
organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be construed as
control by any one entity.' So the Board remains the key body of
power within ICANN and the least accountable, as there is no
democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN community to dismiss the
Board.
<br>
<br>
Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting
unilateral US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent
civil society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the
recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the
ICANN Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the
IGF 'as it is the only place where all internet related topics can be
addressed by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world,
including Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role
the IGF may be able to play as a space where the reviews can be
deliberated on in a multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the
transparency of the review process and perhaps its soft power.
<br>
<br>
Willie
<br>
<br>
Avri Doria wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Mc tim,
<br>
<br>
I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing
changed ?
<br>
<br>
B.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
And something did change.
<br>
<br>
Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer
about.
<br>
It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair
for right of participation.
<br>
<br>
Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the
change will turn out to be for ICANN processes.
<br>
<br>
a.
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>