<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that
it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach
that will have universal approval.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms,
perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but
perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at
some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on
these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group – if it
starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and
cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that
these wider issues are not important).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For me – I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as
regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body – it just
needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As
regards the wider oversight function – I dont personally think it can be
resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of
GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns
there.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to
concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role
as regards IANA function. That might be an achievable quick win that would
also draw support from other stakeholder groups.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jcurran@istaff.org
href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org">John Curran</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:05 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community
fails at multistakeholderism". really?)</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV>
<DIV>On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:48 AM, parminder <<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>>
wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">John<BR><BR>This is a very useful
conversation and I'd like to continue - which I will do, on the side.
Meanwhile, I am also looking at points that perhaps can fit a possible
mutually agreed text that civil society can then propose to the technical
community as a response to the Montevideo statement. <BR><BR>In this
regard:<BR><BR>(1) Either you do not want an Oversight Body, whereby, as ICANN
is rid of US' oversight, existing so called community oversight over ICANN is
enough, . Is it so? In that case, the question is - what if the ICANN Board
does something completely absurd and beyond its authority/ role? Today, the
situation is that they will receive a 'nice' letter from NTIA - they know they
will receive one, and therefore they tread carefully, which is the functioning
oversight system at present. Take away the US oversight (as we agree we should
do) and this system disappears. Are you ready to simply have no specific
enforceable oversight at all over ICANN board after it severs its oversight
relationship with the US gov (on which we have agreed)? <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">(2) Or you are ready for an Oversight Body with
a minimum role, which, as we seem to agree below, at this stage is to be
stated in general terms to be exactly as that of the US government at present.
In that case, we need to agree on some possible way to constitute this
Oversight Body, by whatever name. I proposed a series of options that keeps it
relatively free from political subversion but still effective enough to be
able to carry out the functions it needs to carry out. You suggest below that
it should be an open body that anyone can join in. Are you seriously
suggesting that the oversight role should be done say through open elists, or
whatever way everyone can join a body at will. Can you be clearer about what
kind of a body are you proposing here? How does it function, decide things,
communicate its decisions to ICANN, enforces them, and so on? And how is this
kind of oversight different from what ICANN claims is already a set of
community accountability processes that it has at present. Are you proposing a
new set/ process/ body, or referring to the processes that already
exists?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Parminder -</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I can weigh in on this, but first must make clear that the views I express
are very much</DIV>
<DIV>my own personal views (i.e. the ARIN Board/membership has not discussed, so
ARIN </DIV>
<DIV>has no position at all.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that the global community needs to be able to frankly discuss
performance </DIV>
<DIV>(and any failed expectations) of any organization which coordinates key
components </DIV>
<DIV>of the Internet infrastructure, and to do so in a very open, very brightly
lit public forum.</DIV>
<DIV>These organizations perform a crucial role in success of the Internet, and
assert to </DIV>
<DIV>meet virtuous principles such openness, transparency, inclusiveness,
balanced/equal </DIV>
<DIV>participation, broad consensus, etc. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The role of an Oversight Body, in my personal opinion, should be to allow
everyone </DIV>
<DIV>to participate in discussion of these key organizations performance these
values in </DIV>
<DIV>a maximally transparent forum which utilizes online mechanisms (e.g.
mailing lists,</DIV>
<DIV>wikis, video/teleconferences) along with periodic in-person meetings.
I further believe</DIV>
<DIV>that such a forum should operate under maximal openness and transparency
itself</DIV>
<DIV>(quite important given its role) and therefore it simply cannot exclude
participants.</DIV>
<DIV>I actually see this as a very important protection, one necessary so that
all parties </DIV>
<DIV>(particularly civil society) know that organizations critical to the
Internet effectively</DIV>
<DIV>report to the entire Internet...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that an extremely well-defined role needs to be defined for such
an Oversight</DIV>
<DIV>Body, and it should be chartered to review audit reports from the key
Internet policy </DIV>
<DIV>and standards organizations regarding their performance against their
open/transparent</DIV>
<DIV>asserted principles, to commission independent reviews of the same, to
frankly discuss </DIV>
<DIV>the results of such audits and reports publicly with the organizations
under review. </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that the Oversight Body must be able to recommend changes to
practices, </DIV>
<DIV>and require participating organizations to response publicly and in writing
to such </DIV>
<DIV>requests and any related followup. Finally, I believe such an
Oversight Body must, </DIV>
<DIV>as a measure of last resort, be able to recommend that an organization
asserting to </DIV>
<DIV>be administrating critical Internet resources via the multistakeholder
principles but</DIV>
<DIV>found chronically negligent (and without credible plan for resolution)
should no longer</DIV>
<DIV>administer such resources; such a recommendation is to be considered by
relevant </DIV>
<DIV>authorities so that plans for redelegation can be arranged. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">(3) You seem to suggest below that IANA
function/ authority of actual root changes could be done by ICANN directly
rather than by a body that has oversight over it - which currently is the US
gov. Well, we can agree to that. What this means is that unlike the pre facto
oversight/ authority over root changes that US gov has at present, in the new
oversight system is will only be post facto, if a clear violation of ICANN's
declared processes / mandate can be shown to have happened in the process. I
can agree to it. (Although as above I still need to understand what kind of
body can actually carry out such post-facto role, and in which
manner.)<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>I hope I have outlined my views regarding an Oversight
Body. It does not reverse or</DIV>
<DIV>alter any policy development or implementation decisions, but chronic
failures in proper </DIV>
<DIV>performance instead lead to a recommendation of loss of the role of
administering critical </DIV>
<DIV>Internet resources (a very significant consequence)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You'll note that this same Oversight Body could apply to entities further
down the chain </DIV>
<DIV>than just IANA, e.g. ARIN, a delegated competitive or cooperative
TLD, etc. That was </DIV>
<DIV>quite intentional, I believe that the task of making sure that
organizations (who are </DIV>
<DIV>administrating critical Internet resources) are actually upholding their
claims of openness </DIV>
<DIV>applies at many layers of the model (but obviously lies beyond the scope of
a discussion</DIV>
<DIV>purely about transitioning IANA function oversight...)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">(4) Whether we agree on some body doing
a narrow oversight over ICANN as ICANN gets truly globalised, or we just agree
to a free-float ICANN with no oversight at all, but as an international body,
we still need to agree on a few things (which I think are rather easier).
These are - (a) ICANN gets incorporated under international law (How the
statement of such law is reached, and under what protocols does then ICANN's
incorporation proceed will need to be worked, and there are some international
precedents. However, at present we can agree to the principle involved.) (b)
ICANN makes a host country agreement with the US freeing it from all kinds of
US jurisdictions - including those of US courts. (c) ICANN is made subject
only to international jurisdiction, with appeal authority lying with
International Court of Justice which creates a special bench for Internet
matters....<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>I am no expert in such matter, but believe that all of the
above make imminent sense.<BR>
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Can we develop a statement incorporating
these basic principles with some level of specificity regarding the needed
institutional changes? Would the technical community be sympathetic to such an
effort?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Very challenging situation... you have organizations which recognize
concerns with the </DIV>
<DIV>present USG oversight model, but that does not imply coherence or vision
regarding what</DIV>
<DIV>should take its place. I'm happy to provide you my personal
insights on what I believe is </DIV>
<DIV>necessary but must warn you to consider purely from an principled-based
discussion not</DIV>
<DIV>as any form of political value, i.e. by incorporation of such views that
you might bring more </DIV>
<DIV>organizations in support of single banner. Until ARIN's members and
Board have a chance</DIV>
<DIV>to discuss the situation, I do not even know if my unique perspectives will
appear in any </DIV>
<DIV>form of the positions ARIN takes going forward.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV>/John</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Disclaimers: See above, first paragraph, last paragraph - definitely
my views alone;</DIV>
<DIV>
sole value of such views is limited to the sum of constituent electrons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<STYLE type=text/css>
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
a:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</STYLE>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>