[governance] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit

Wed Nov 2 06:53:10 EST 2005

Dear Milton,
 Congratulations to you, Jeanette, Hans, Lee and Derrick for the remarkable
IGP paper. Timely, clear, balanced and, IMHO, pointing in the right
direction, namely the creation of a multi-stakeholder framework for ICANN.
(On a side note, when I mentionned in a previous mail that there is no need
in the ICANN framework for more than involving governments as peers, I did
not overlook the existence of the present oversight, I was merely pointing
to the ideal objective in the future, exactly the one you indicate.)
 I fully support the distinction between narrow and broad dimensions and it
should be taken into account in the resumed PrepCom3 as a way to avoid
deadlock - or maybe to cope with a possible governmental deadlock (ie
setting a separate track for the reform of the ICANN MoU and the
establishment of a broader policy issues debate space).
 I terms of process, the WSIS has demonstrated that the UN framework is not
able to address the future of ICANN in a truly multi-stakeholder format. But
the alternative (addressing the reform of ICANN within the existing ICANN
framework itself) is not likely to be working either. Therefore, a specific
multi-stakeholder process should take place in 2006 to reform the MoU as you
indicate, including through a RFC-type mechanism involving all actors -
including governments. Such a specific process must be launched now, and it
can only be done by civil society.
 How can we move forward on that idea ?
 1) *Finding a mobilizing formulation for the overall goal/campaign*.
"Status quo minus" and "de-nationalizing" ICANN are accurate but maybe not
mobilizing enough. Inspiration can come from the Landmines Treaty Campaign
or the Coalition of the International Criminal Court.
 In our case, what would be an appropriate formulation ? Some initiatl food
for thought : "Towards a truly multi-stakeholder ICANN" ? "ICANN 2007" or
even ICANN 2010 (to imply the notion of a transition period) ? ICANN 2.0 ?
Internet Commission for Assigned Names and Numbers ? Coalition for the
Reform of ICANN ? Internet Governance 2010 ? Internet Governance Framework
2010 ?
 I just jotted down the above formulations for my own thinking. What came
out of it spontaneously is :
- the likely interest of a date, to indicate it is a process, and there may
be a transition (even if 2010 is a little far away)
- there is a choice between mentionning only ICANN (benefit of being focused
but less visibily in the general public) and mentionning Internet Governance
(now broadly visible in the general public but maybe too large)
 I personnaly would favor "Internet Governance 2010" or "ICANN 2010" as
being simple, easy to understand and not prejudging too much the actual
outcome, allowing for a broader range of participants to get involved. A
closer date (2007 or 2008 for instance) is also possible.
 2) *Drafting of a one-page "manifesto"*
 This could be created on the basis of the discussions in the IG Caucus
list, the various statements already prepared, Vittorio's effort and your
paper. It would not get too much in the details of the solution but could be
structured along the following elements (preliminary draft structure) :

    - the wrong angle of the debate within WSIS - which is the resaon for
      its deadlock
      - the need to move beyond the present structure of ICANN
      (maintaining the status quo is not possible)
      - the general goal of establishing a truly multi-stakeholder
      framework for the management of Internet Resources, based on a
limited set
      of principles
      - the proposed process to conduct a broad MS consultation in
      2006, with the objective of producing, by summer 2006, a
proposal for reform
      of the ICANN MoU in the form of a "Green Paper" (or other form)
      - the willingness of actors (IGP, CPSR, APC, IG Caucus members,
      others ?) to facilitate this process
      - a call to other actors sharing this objective, including
      governments and the private sector to fully participate and
facilitate this
      exercise

 3) *Creating a facilitation group*
 On the basis of previous discussions on the governance list, and
particularly Willie's suggestion of a "citizen's commission", could we move
forward on that, set up a facilitation group (could it be multi-stakeholder
?), look for possible funding and approach some other stakeholders that
could be interested.
 Online tools (dedicated website, forums, collaborative instruments) would
be put in place to support the initiative.
 The CPSR panel in Tunis on November 16th (11 am to 1 pm) could be an
opportunity to announce such an initiative. It would ideally be supported
immediately by some actors previously approached.
 A meeting of possible facilitators could take place in early 2006.
___________
 Some might propose to use the Forum to do this. But I am not sure it would
be the most appropriate way, as it seems more adapted to the broad policy
issues discussion. In any case, should it be finally decided in Tunis, it
will take time to put in place and could be a space to report the results of
the above effort.
 Given the situation governments, particularly thanks to the position of the
US government, have painted themselves into, CS is in an ideal position to
take the initiative and Tunis is the right moment to do so.
 My two cents. Hope this helps.
 Best
 Bertrand

 On 11/1/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> =================
> Political Oversight of ICANN
> =================
>
> The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the
> controversies around "oversight" of ICANN.
>
> http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
>
> We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in
> setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower
> problem of ICANN's oversight.
>
> An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to
> supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can
> be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids
> threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet.
>
> The paper can be downloaded here:
> http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
>
> www.internetgovernance.org <http://www.internetgovernance.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051102/a82f992d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance