<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite"><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are
having so much fun, this really caught my eye. From WSIS Phase I to
the CIRP proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with
authoritative policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Bill<br>
<br>
You are welcome to partake of the fun. <br>
<br>
Ok, on to substantive matters. <br>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">US employs the term
'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a vis ICANN. WGIG
was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to </font>the
role played by U<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">S Dept of
Commerce. Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision
making? If so, yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning
of an arms- length role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional
conditions, adherence to clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">. (That US does not have such
instruments is a defect in the system.) </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I dont think who does oversight
should impact the meaning of what oversight is.</font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also
spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental
body. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to
divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means
ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a
recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be
watered. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is really welcome. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but
there could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global
Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations...</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please
explain. Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral
declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see
how that would do. But ready to discuss. <br>
<br>
(Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of
success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a
treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the
cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of
all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty.
However we do make our positions about which way the world and its
insitutions should go independent of such assessment. Our constitution
writers wrote those lofty ideals and built institutional designs
looking far ahead, didnt they.)<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>