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

[Parminder]

Avri

 

 

>> 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.>>

 

But that precisely is the big question. We cant say we have done everything
else, only this little detail is left. The whole issue of political
oversight hinges on sorting this question. Please see my other mail on this
issue to the IG list. We cant submit a CS position without sorting out and
agreeing on this 'mother of issues'. 

 

If we can agree on having a legitimate political body do the external
oversight, after it is taken away from the US  - then I am in complete
agreement with all the text in the draft on the needed reform in ICANN...

 

 

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

 

 The framework for figuring out the differences cannot be built outside this
vital point - it has to built from a discussion on and sorting out this
vital point --- after that it wont really be much of a problem.. 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:43 AM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight
options'

 

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/20051107/275b3daa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance