[bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

[parminder]

I am willing to take the technical community at its word on the 
Montevideo statement that they indeed seek truly substantive progress 
towards globalisation of ICANN and IANA function. There is also an 
important clarification provided by John that "  we're all using the 
term globalization to mean"free from one specific country's 
jurisdiction/governance". Raul has also made a clear statement that 
LACNIC supports "ICANN becoming an international organisation 
incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction".

There are other good leads in ARIN's response to WGEC - like, technical 
bodies are best guided under clearly set but relatively higher level 
public policy principles ........

I think we may have a basis here to try to move forward. And this is a 
very good time to do so, with global confidence in the Internet shaken 
post-Snowden as perhaps never before. If people are to get a real 
response, it is now.

Anyway, I can understand that actual working technical organisations, 
with clear organisational responsibilities, and a place in the IG 
ecosystem, would be conservative to actually begun making specific 
proposals. I mean they cant perhaps do it in the same way as civil 
society can. And here a good division of labour comes into picture.

So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the 
Montevideo statement, especially its commitment to seeing some 
substantial progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA 
functions, and in this context, 'we present the following proposal for 
the consideration and support of the technical community'.

The proposal would be made of some clear principles followed by specific 
(though yet a bit higher level) institutional steps and processes for 
globalisation of the ICANN and IANA. We can discuss these principles and 
specific institutional changes on this list so that we have a statement 
that is likely to be accepted by the technical community. If we can 
agree to this and take a common statement to, well, the governments, I 
think we would have accomplished a lot. I can bet, a real shift will 
begun that day.

Any takers?

parminder




On Wednesday 09 October 2013 05:20 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of 
>>> ICANN and IANA
>>> a would call a truly substantial development.
>>
>> Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists...
>
> Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, 3rd bullet -
>
> "They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA 
> functions,
>  towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all 
> governments,
>  participate on an equal footing."
>
> It is a _call_, not a _proposal_
>
>> Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation 
>> incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from 
>> all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with 
>> the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or 
>> internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal 
>> from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change.
>
> Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not 
> a plan for
> doing such...  I do believe that we're all using the term 
> globalization to mean
> "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance".
>
>> Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation 
>> - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US 
>> cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it 
>> would look like (although always open to further comments and 
>> changes). For instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 
>> organisations including ours, 
>> http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf 
>> .  Happy to hear your comments on this.
>
> Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a 
> component of
> the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity?
>
>>> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"...  how would one 
>>> globalize the 
>>> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the 
>>> USG/NTIA?
>> See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over 
>> this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US 
>> jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ 
>> internationalise something ?
>
> There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example,
> you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN,
> and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF.  I can easily imagine
> other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of 
> bodies
> and mechanisms.
>
> The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not
> propose any particular solution, but only states that several 
> organizations
> which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the 
> globalization of
> ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all 
> stakeholders,
> including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal 
> worth
> accelerating.
>
> Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the
> question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated 
> that
> the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly
> would have supported the status quo...
>
> /John
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131009/118244b3/attachment.htm>