[bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[Mawaki Chango]

 Parminder,

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Mawaki
>
> Thanks for this effort.
>
> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
> decision making on public policy issues...
>

I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should
be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal
or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the
meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
context.) Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have
been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may
evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not
necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and
experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one
or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?

I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?

If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?


> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>
> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know
> more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no
> longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>

Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
other stakeholders.

Mawaki


>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in
> a manner that takes care of these issues..
>
> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>  On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>  ---
>
>  IGC Draft Press Release
>
>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition.
>
>
>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>
>
>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/0568dc13/attachment.htm>