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

[Danny Younger]

Avri,

Please note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel
arbitration process is not "binding".  The Board is
only required to "consider the IRP declaration at the
Board's next meeting".


--- Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance