<div dir="ltr">Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding...<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:13 AM, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target="_blank">jcurran@istaff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div class="im">On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Bill,<br>
><br>
> My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all.<br>
<br>
</div>Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship<br>
between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization<br>
may have multiple "respective roles"... I explore this question with<br>
respect the "role of government" below.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument:<br>
><br>
> 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions.<br>
<br>
</div>Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution. In the Affirmation<br>
of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a particular<br>
government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize periodic<br>
reviews of its commitments. Governments seeking similar commitments from<br>
ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and participate in<br>
those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have I asked<br>
ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-)<br>
<br>
I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a central body<br>
as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments<br>
that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an AoC<br>
agreement. If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held by<br>
governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there<br>
is some additional "body" involved in your solution.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.)</div>
<div> </div><div>Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with each government separately.) </div>
<div> </div><div>Please note: </div><div>i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement.</div>
<div> </div><div>ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to each one to form or join alliances in the process.) </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<br>
The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; it does<br>
not address the role of governments in the policy development process. It is quite<br>
possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but still one<br>
available to governments that wish more than just participating via the oversight<br>
role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments. For example, with respect to number<br>
resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and comment<br>
on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) development<br>
processes just as any other participant. The "policy development" role is available<br>
to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the policy formation<br>
process.<br>
<br>
It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a third role,<br>
since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but (per the ICANN<br>
Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to<br>
concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction<br>
between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where<br>
they may affect public policy issues." This appears to be a liaison role, whereby<br>
governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and policies<br>
may intersect laws and agreements. Telling ICANN that a policy has an interaction<br>
with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual participation<br>
during the course of policy development and should not be lightly co-mingled.<br>
<br>
In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but more likely<br>
"what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to coordination<br>
of critical Internet resources.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I agree with you on all that. The comparison with the AoC by the phrase "AoC-type agreement" was not meant to say the current AoC content will be retained. The content of the new framework will be negotiated anew, with the definition of all types of role, relationships as well as all roles and functions (for governments or for all stakeholders in this particular document, depending on the type of framework eventually chosen for it), safe unnecessary levels of detail.</div>
<div> </div><div>Thanks,</div><div> </div><div>Mawaki</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<br>
FYI,<br>
/John<br>
<br>
Disclaimers: My views alone. Not being a government, I do not intend to enter into<br>
an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the Internet I still<br>
intend to hold them accountable to the principles therein (at least via<br>
the court of public opinion... ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>