<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 03 June 2012 03:52 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder<br>
<div></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have repeatedly said that the US version of what is 'oversight' as
you describe it, is what I mean by oversight. So can we proceed ahead
with that, rather than you insisting that is not what I mean. We are
trying to see here if we/ IGC can agree on some some basic issues of
'enhanced cooperation'. On the other hand, I dont think that most
developing countries necessarily ascribe all the public policy work to
the 'oversight function' itself, although they may be interested in all
the policy stuff apart from the oversight function. In addition, they
may also, at this stage, have mostly only thought of the same body
doing the two set of functions. I do agree that most proposals for an
alternative to the status quo have not been nuanced enough on this
count. Which is one reason ITfC is attempting a more nuanced
institutional proposal with institutional mechanism for oversight
function being rather distinct from any that may be discussed for
larger Internet related public policies. <br>
<br>
I have in my current proposal/ formulation specially sought separation
of oversight from other (desirable or not) public policy issues/
functions. Are you against this separation? Why when I am ready to
discuss the (narrow) oversight function as separated from other larger
policy functions do you insist on conflating them. Do you want to see
these two set of functions together? If not, we are both on the same
page and can try to move ahead. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, I know you were on the WGIG but as I read the WGIG report (and
also Tunis Agenda) I can clearly make out that it saw 'oversight'
function in the narrow sense as I am speaking about rather than the
broad sense that you insist it is meant in international talk. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond
the NTIA functions. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you look at the WGIG report (for those who may want to, it is <a
href="http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html">here </a>), the four
models you speak of are not oversight models (that is the short-hand
that gets used often), they are, to quote the section heading, 'global
public policy and oversight' models. And some sense of such separation
is kept throughout in the section (though of course the two can perhaps
never be entirely entirely unconnected). In all the three models that
more specifically speak of 'oversight' along with some broader public
policy functions, the separation is evident from below quotes I
provide. The proposed new Global Internet Council (or a similar body)
has a larger set of public policy functions, within which oversight is
proposed as a narrow clear set of functions.<br>
<br>
Quote from Model 1 of WGIG,<br>
<br>
<blockquote> (only one of the proposed 5 functions is ) providing the
necessary oversight relating to Internet resource management, such as
additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP
addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.<br>
</blockquote>
Model 2 doesnt mention the term 'oversight' but the following quote,
especially the phrase 'In addition' makes the sense of separation clear
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> ....an International Internet Council
(IIC) could fulfil the corresponding functions, especially in
relation to ICANN/IANA competencies.
..... In addition, its
functions might include international public policy issues relating to
......</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Model 4 in fact actually recommends separate bodies for CIR oversight
and for broader public policy functions, and so I dont think I need to
go into quoting from it.<br>
<br>
For the casual reader I should make it clear that at this point I am
not advocating any of these WGIG models, I am only making the point
that the these is sufficiently entreched and wide-spread understanding
of 'oversight' as a relatively clear and narrow set of functions,
distinct from all kinds of other global Internet related public policy
issues. <br>
<br>
This gives us enough basis for us to proceed on thinking of these
functions separately, that is if we indeed want to do so, in suggesting
alternatives that better address the concerns and fears of different
actors. <br>
<br>
As I understand, Bill, one of your prime problems is that the two
issues of oversight and wider Internet related public policy are
normally thrown together, so when I am suggesting we proceed with
thinking of them, and the needed institutional responses, separately,
why not just come along :) . <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C31399AA-99A4-41DB-80DD-3F346C868E6E@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>