<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 October 2013 01:12 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525508F2.9010901@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">OK, John, we can have the oversight function
to </font>be "<font face="Verdana">limited to judging ICANN </font>on
its compliance with its declared processes<font face="Verdana">"
(and mandate ?) </font></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">although there is a significant catch there -
that if ICANN can itself change any or all of its processes and
mandate, at any time, then it really makes no sense for any kind
of oversight role, because then all and absolute power really
still fully resides with ICANN - with no seperation of power, as
is required. There has to be some 'constitutional' processes and
substantive mandate that is inviolable and cannot be changed
unilaterally by ICANN with regard to which it will be 'judged' by
whoever has the oversight role...<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:525508F2.9010901@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana">(which I understand as per its current mandate is
also to work as per international law, we may or not make this
explicit, which I prefer, but can do without for the present
purpose.) As I said, for good measure, in a possible agreed
text, we can also add (or not), that we mean here nothing more
than the role played by the US government at present. <br>
<br>
There is still lack of clarity who would "judge ICANN" in the
above regard. Is a global techno-political board with a
membership pattern as I proposed, including from RIRs, or some
such thing, with a clearly laid out narrow mandate, subject to
appeal to International Court of Justice, not acceptable to you.
If not, then, who would judge. Pl be clear, Is it just to be the
'community processes' as ICANN claims that it has at present. Do
you conflate that with the oversight role?<br>
<br>
You have asked, what does performing IANA function mean to me.
Well, I am primarily speaking about actually authorising changes
in the root, with the ownership over the authoritative root
server - whether the function is exercised through a contracted
agent or not..... There may be other number resource allocation
functions etc, but I aint going into that. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 October 2013 12:51
PM, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D2A26C1D-4D4C-4EB9-A29C-86CDBB840446@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div>On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<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">
<div>
<div><snip><br>
</div>
<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? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can
easily be captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean
what they would like it to mean. ICANN can be said to be
already subject to such an open scrutiny by global
constituencies - its various constitutive processes and so
on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN is
already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant
agree.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight
role is definitely necessary.</div>
<div>Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority?
I believe that a large number</div>
<div>of institutions that claim to adhere to open and
transparent principles of policy development</div>
<div>should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not
certain that such oversight must be</div>
<div>inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have
the capability with the Internet to </div>
<div>have institutions be held accountable for their claims of
openness and transparency to a</div>
<div>very large number of parties at once, including and all
interested governments, civil society</div>
<div>organizations, and other Internet technical coordination
groups. </div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> We need a body with
however limited and circumscribed function to exercise
core oversight function. Such division of executive
authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing
bodies of NGOS for instance do over the executive staff)
is very necessary. No body can work appropriately without
such separation of power and responsibilities. And ICANN
functions are of two great global importance to leave
ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, more or
less, it at present has. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Full agreement.<br>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Also, this proposed
global Board will also exercise the IANA function, which
is with the US government at present. This function cannot
be exercised by an open participative process. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
"Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise"
means and why it should </div>
<div>be commingled? </div>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> BTW, external, third
party audits are technical/ professional processes that
are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never
constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and
discussed in organisational and governance theories, and I
would not go into deeper details. We all know, we get the
'third party' auditors that we want to get - and they can
in any case only point to some very clearly illegal or
extra-legal things - auditors are not there to cast
political or even substantive governance judgements. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for
actual open and transparent policy</div>
<div>making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the
oversight role be limited to judging ICANN</div>
<div>on its compliance with its declared processes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style> </blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>