<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">John,<br>
<br>
Your principal issue with the Oversight Board we proposed is that
- it seeks to ensure that ICANN works as per international law and
legally developed policies, rather than, as you say is the present
oversight function, merely ensure that ICANN fulfils its mandate
properly. My response is as follows. <br>
<br>
One, the new IANA contract seeks a public interest justification
for any root modification, and that directly puts IANA authourity
holder - the US government - in a position of making judgements
over what constitutes public interest, which is a much more
unclear term, and open to subjective interpretations, than seeking
adherence to international law and legally developed and
communicated international policies etc. So, if your bottom line
is - dont go beyond the current US oversight function, I am fine
with it. But in our proposal, we are being clearer (and milder)
than the current US oversight function is. <br>
<br>
Second, I understand it is already ICANN's self-defined mandate to
work as per international law. Isnt it. We are just reinforcing
it. I mean, it should be something higher than the ICANN's own
authority to change this particualr mandate. They cant simply
mandate themselves one day not to have to work as per
international law. <br>
<br>
However, I am happy to change the language and role of the mandate
of the proposed oversight board to keep it as close to the current
oversight role as played by the US governemnt at present. we can
put in an agreed text , at a general principle level say, that the
role of the proposed global oversight board will be exactly as
played by the US governemnt at present in its oversight authority.
That that work for you.<br>
<br>
Lastly, you have a objection to the secondary advisory role given
to the same body (the proposed global oversight board) with regard
to IETF and other technical standards bodies. We, the group that
proposed this statement, strongly feel that the time has come that
IETF kind of so called open processes have some kind of an
institutional international advisory board that can regularly
bring in public policy perspectives to such bodies. We are very
clear that this role is indeed strictly advisory. This will also
benefit the technical standards bodies a lot, and so forth.<br>
<br>
But for the present purpose, to get a consensus, we can entirely
remove the advisory role for such a proposed body from the
mandate. And just have a global oversight board with exactly the
same mandate, role and authourity as is exercised by the UG
government with regard to ICANN/ IANA function. We can just agree
to this particular language. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile however I do remember that you have regularly mentioned
- and it appears in ARIN's response to WGEC as well - that
technical community will want clearly laid out international law
and public polices, at a relatively higher/ general level, and
would welcome any effort in this direction. A global oversight
board, constituted properly, and relatively insulated from
political subversion, will be able to do precisely that. Otherwise
the canvass of international law and pulbic policies can be too
spread out and diffuse to make propoer sense to those invovled
with day to day technical operations pertaining to the Internet. A
properly constituted and mandated oversight board would in fact do
what you, and evidently, AIRN has been asking for - clear policy
frameworks, but any policy body staying at more than an arms
length from day to day operations. Such a pulbic policy interface
is much better than say the ad hoc interventions like those done
by GAC at present, completely dependent on the political muscle of
the invovled country(ies) but with no clear documented legal/
policy basis. <br>
<br>
So that this proposed global oversight board does not abuse its
authority, and works within its narrowly circumscribed role, its
decisions should be subject to be appealed to with the
Intenrational Court of Justice, which should set up a special
bench for Internet issues of this kind. All this is easily
plausible, given just a little political will.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<div>On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:29 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote
cite="mid:25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and
IANA functions, not a plan for </div>
<div>doing such... I do believe that we're all using
the term globalization to mean </div>
<div>"free from one specific country's
jurisdiction/governance".</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for that clarification. Now that we agree that we are
all for globalisation of ICANN and IANA function, and are
building consensus what we mean by such globalisation, and
what we dont mean, it is a promising start.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
</div>
<div>Indeed.</div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote
cite="mid:25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net"
type="cite">
<div>Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory
Board" a component of </div>
<div>the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not a new UN body. It is standalone. And we propose
novel non- or semi-political composition of it, or as we
call it, a techno- political composition. I am cut pasting
the entire relevant text below. Advice is welcome. As
mentioned one can consider other ways of filling the
membership - say, half the members can be from regional
registries, and other from technical organisations from
countries by rotation.... Many such possibilities exist - to
globalise ICANN/IANA without exposing it to potential
political harm.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely
open and transparent?</div>
<div>i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development
in this model actually</div>
<div>undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to
a set of principles and </div>
<div>then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is
there a need for only a </div>
<div>select community to participate in the oversight? </div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">The following is the
text with regard to the proposed 'Internet Technical
Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this
isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start
somewhere.
<br>
...</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">The Internet technical
oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the
various technical and operational functions related to the
global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations
as per international law and public policy principles
developed by the concerned international bodies.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The mission statement above is very interesting; it
definitely encompasses much more</div>
<div>hands-on direction of ICANN than the present oversight
model.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">With regard to ICANN,
the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same
as exercised by the US government in its oversight over
ICANN.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Umm.. I would beg to differ - the current oversight does
indeed focus on making sure that </div>
<div>ICANN fulfills its obligations, but that does not presently
include the phrase "as per ... public </div>
<div>policy principles developed by the concerned international
bodies."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>An _oversight_ role should be about ICANN fulfilling its
mission, yet you've effectively </div>
<div>set a charter for this Internet Technical Oversight and
Advisory Board which indirectly</div>
<div>_changes_ ICANN's mission by making it subject to public
policies "principles" of vague</div>
<div>and uncertain origin.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">As for the decentralized
Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet
Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based
on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as
at present. The new board will have a very light touch and
non-binding role with regard to them.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Changing the oversight of ICANN is unrelated to some form
of oversight over IETF; yet </div>
<div>this appears conflated (albeit in a non-binding role)...
this is both unnecessary and creates</div>
<div>significant risk.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">It will bring in
imperatives from, and advise these technical standards
bodies on, international public policies, international law
and norms being developed by various relevant bodies.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
If there are truly international public policies laws, mandates
or norms, the technical standards </div>
<div>bodies are quite capable of considering them in development
efforts, and does not need any</div>
<div>intermediary.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm"
align="JUSTIFY">For this board to be able to fulfill its
oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international
organization, without changing its existing
multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It
would enter into a host country agreement with the US
government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered
in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and
executive authority, and be guided solely by
international law, and be incorporated under it.
Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must
also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board
will exercise this role with the help of an
internationalized ICANN.
</p>
<p style="margin-left: 1.25cm; margin-bottom: 0cm"
align="JUSTIFY">This board will also advise the
afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical
matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as
well as take public policy inputs from it.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>Apparently, this Board is also accepting public policy
_inputs_ (not adopted norms or mandates)</div>
<div>and will in some manner, use these in the oversight of ICANN?
This is not an _oversight_ role,</div>
<div>this appears to be direct supervision of ICANN's mission.
Was any consideration given of a true</div>
<div>oversight body/role?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>