[governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options'

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 6 nov 2005, at 10.38, Parminder wrote:

> I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of  
> replacing ICANN. Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN  
> oversight moves to an inter-governmental system with adequate CS  
> participation, ICANN will still need a lot of reforming. So it is  
> great to press for and associate with such reform.
>
>
>
> So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN  
> arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature – to  
> itself. And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource  
> allocation etc functions under necessary oversight – and ICANN  
> doing public policy function which ‘no oversight’ over ICANN will  
> imply.

I think i understand.   but let me confirm.

Are you arguing that the notions of auditing and external appeal with  
binding arbitration, as currently drafted, are not sufficient?

In thinking about it, and talking to some other folks, the issues  
looks like it breaks down into several decisions one needs to make  
about oversight.

- Internal
- External

I believe that the current draft in CS includes both a notion of  
internal oversight (self management) and a notion of external oversight.

If we look at external oversight, there are at least 2 types:

- Proactive - a group that gives the group its marching orders and  
defines the constraints for its behavior
- Exception basis - only comes into action when something goes wrong.

(i am sure there are many steps in between)

The external review  proposed in the IGC draft is of the second type  
of mechanism.  Do you support the proactive type of mechanism.  Or  
one of the myriad other types of management?

Within the exception process, there are at least two extremes:

- the appeals group returns a ruling that says ICANN was wrong and  
must make the following remedy
- the appeals group tells ICANN, that they messed up and should  
reconsider.

I think the draft tends toward a middle position between these two:
-  the appeals group returns an agreement reached through binding  
arbitration.

I am sure I left out a myriad number of options that occur if the IGC  
adopts the position that includes:

- ICANN remains the organization with the regulatory responsibility
- there needs to be some sort of external political oversight/management

but i hope this gives us a framework for trying to figure out exactly  
where the differnces are between the different positions.

I also did not get into who wields the external oversight?  i assume  
some form of multistakeholder group needs to be formed, what ever the  
mix.

a.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051106/bc54e7f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance