<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Parminder<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch" type="cite"><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Whoopee!<br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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. </font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been variously described by some G77 & China governments. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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.</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate. If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA functions. </div><div><br></div><div>Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and </div><div>*set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.</div><div>* set policies on international public policy and coordination for other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other existing intergovernmental organizations.</div><div>*Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies.<br>*Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all.<br>*Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.</div><div><br></div><div>Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council (IIC) that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined.</div><div><br></div><div>Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council with broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in observer roles. Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the USG roles, It would exercise oversight of a new World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the United Nations. </div><div><br></div><div>And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the accompanying but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager that wasn't released as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the views in the group. </div><div><br></div><div>In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially beyond the scope of the NTIA/USG role. And unquestionably, substantially beyond just 'ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty.' Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, via intergovernmental negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in some sort of observer/advisory role.</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> 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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). Those countries that have advocated international oversight—BRICSA and some other upper income G77 and China members—have consistently advocated another version that'd have a much broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper either than what NTIA does or what you're saying now.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) So ok, you said multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly broader than just ensuring adherence to international law...<blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now...<br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar with the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase compliance with it...<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc</a></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which the NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when things are clearly be done properly and jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully independent, with a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps including actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do even now...). And so on.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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.)
</div>
</blockquote><br></div><div>I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option.</div><div><br></div><div>My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating intergovernmental agreements? Why not focus first on what needs to be done, and consider the range of possible forms that might help do it, especially if some are less likely to meet immediate political resistance? Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and make better use of the IGF?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br></body></html>