<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 01 June 2012 09:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#333333;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:#333333;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:#333333;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:#333333;}
span.moz-txt-citetags
{mso-style-name:moz-txt-citetags;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I'm
re-sending this because Parminder has ignored it. Really interested in
rational dialogue on this topic.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh, I did not realise you are really interested in a rational dialogue
on this topic! <br>
<br>
Because your email basically rejected my proposal on ICANN oversight ex
ante as not worthy of consideration, since I dont attend ICANN
meetings, I am "oddly ignorant of post WSIS critiques of 'oversight'
and 'public policy'" (whose critiques? yours?), and you wonder "whose
agenda is it (meaning, my proposal), because it is certainly not civil
society's". And after this summary rejection, you pointed me to your
own submission on 'ICANN transition' of 2009, apparently as the only
proposal worthy of discussion. Do you think this lays the ground for a
'rational dialogue'? (BTW, you may remember that ITfC supported the
shorter advocacy statement that you prepared at that time, and so, yes,
I am aware of this longer document as well.)<br>
<br>
I understand, basically you want me to comment on <i>your</i> proposal
of 'ICANN transition' at the refered link <span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf">
http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf</a>
</span>. Sure, why not. <br>
<br>
Your submission says, there should be a US led international agreement
on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by what does 'US led' mean.
Pl explain. I can only understand international agreements under
international systems, like the UN. An international agreement requires
a international body as a guarantor, it cannot be guaranteed by a party
national government alone. However, we, in general, do agree that
ICANN's status and role should be given and guaranteed by an
international agreement.<br>
<br>
Quoting your proposal<br>
<blockquote> "Governments should be involved not as “oversight”
authorities or “public policy makers” but as backers of a<br>
shared legal framework that maintains accountability and gives
non-state actors a legal basis for settling important disputes."<br>
</blockquote>
I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring adherence
to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the international
treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I quote from
my email / proposal "... this body will have a
very narrowly defined role, with duly laid out procedure to fulfil it.
There would not be much proactive work for it to do at all. " How do
you think this corresponds to your observations on my proposal, and I
quote you<br>
<br>
"<span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The
big
difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" body with the
arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and impose it on ICANN
processes and communities, whereas our proposals are designed to
prevent just that." ????</span><br>
<br>
In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to be quite confused
between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and at the same time
putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to FoE regulation,
anti-trust law etc (through the international agreement). This is
subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it. Yes, public policy
written clearly in an legal instrument, with a clearly laid down
process of enforcing it. Nothing more have I asked for. However
sometime what is legitimate public policy may have different versions
that just the Milton one :). But still we agree basically this is what
it is. <br>
<br>
Then you seek "
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
--></style>an
appropriate body of national law
under which ICANN should operate", whereby you mean an body of US law.
No we cant agree here US law is made and can be changed by US
legislature, and that doesnt work for the rest of the world. The
appropriate body has to be of international law. <br>
<br>
You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use California
law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt work for me.
<br>
<br>
I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want
people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US
national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global resource
at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek to subvert
relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA with in favour
of international arbitration. Why being so stingy about sticking to
national law and redress systems in this case. Why cant we have an
international redress system.<br>
<br>
So, whose agenda your proposal is, US government's? (Sorry, could not
resist it :) )<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">==============</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Some
responses to Parminder's views on CIR oversight<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">It is important to
do so, if we have to legitimately argue for safe-guarding existing
distributed system of CIR management and technical standards setting.<span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[MM]
Let me begin by pointing out that neither you nor your group has ever
attended an ICANN meeting, nor have you sought membership or
participation in the civil society representational organs of ICANN,
despite many invitations and despite the many battles ICANN civil
society has needed help to fight. Thus, it is surprising to see you
eager to redefine the whole structure suddenly. One wonder whose agenda
it is, as it is certainly not civil society's. Also, some awareness of
the behavior of the Governmental Advisory Committee within ICANN might
be sufficient to convince those with a reality-focused, objective
perspective that the types of "oversight" you are calling for can be
troublesome, to put it mildly. I'd encourage you to make better use of
the many resources - experience, expertise, and networks - that already
exist among ICANN-focused civil society, before developing yet another
manifesto.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">The other option is
that developing countries lean towards the ITU, which can shift the
terrain toward development of a new top-down, centralised and
bureaucratic CIR management/ tech standards model.
<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[MM]
Many developing countries have "leaned toward the ITU" for years. It is
unlikely to affect anything. If the case for your proposed changes is
fear of this alternative, it is a very weak case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">(1) Shifting
oversight of CIRs from US gov to an international body<span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">[MM]
It should not be "international" it should be "non-national." To be
"international" is to be an intergovernmental organization, which means
_<i>not acceptable to Internet freedom advocates</i>_. A smaller club
of governments (which has been proposed by European Commission at one
time) could be even worse. Oddly, you seem to be completely unaware of
the critiques of the whole notion of "oversight," and its sister
concept of "public policy" that have been developed in the wake of
WSIS.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The
path toward accountability and legitimate process in CIRs is _<i>not</i>_
going to come from concepts of an additional (governmental or MS)
committee providing "oversight" on behalf of "public policy" or "public
interest" concerns. On the contrary, as we have learned from the end
game of the new gTLD process, the concept of oversight inevitably
devolves into a politicized battle among special interests to undo, or
re-do, policies emerging from the bottom up process if they don't like
the outcome. "Oversight" means arbitrary, politicized, unpredictable
and hence unjust and inefficient process. "Oversight" means imposing
another unaccountable board on top of the existing ICANN board, when
the problem is that the existing one is not accountable enough.
Replacing US oversight with oversight by multiple governments compounds
the problem we have, it doesn’t fix it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">What
is needed are clear rules - rules designed both to restrain and limit
ICANN, and to restrain and limit the external forces, including
especially governments, who might interfere with ICANN and its
processes. IGP made a pretty good start at defining the principles
underlying such rules in its filings on the ICANN "transition" back in
2009.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf">http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf</a>
(See section "Revising the model")<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">In
those comments, you may find a great deal of common ground - we
recognize the need for legally binding forms of accountability and that
this may need to involve coordinated action among states to pass a
treaty. The big difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" body
with the arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and impose it
on ICANN processes and communities, whereas our proposals are designed
to prevent just that. We want the involved community to make policy,
within very narrowly defined boundaries, and we want rules we need from
governments, and liberal, freedom-enhancing rules - not a blank check
to second-guess or re-do or control and regulate people's actions via
the Internet. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Milton
L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Professor,
Syracuse University School of Information Studies<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Internet
Governance Project<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>