<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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. 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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net"
type="cite">
<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>