[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Jacqueline Morris]

Seems like a good state of the discussions so far.
But we have no agreement on the real thorny question of oversight...
Jacqueline

On 11/9/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to
> agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know
> what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus.
>
> This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair.
>
> I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into
> agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in
> interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on
> something given for agreed, please point that out.
>
>
> * OVERSIGHT
>
> -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT
>
> 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in
> multistakeholder settings.
>
> 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a
> governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles".
>
>
> -- DNS OVERSIGHT
>
> 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be
> governmental oversight over ICANN.
>
> 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the
> present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo.
>
> 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations.
>
> 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the
> DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where
> governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable.
>
> 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in
> the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable.
>
> 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved
> below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations".
>
> 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil
> society (including individual users, the academic community, the free
> software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy
> making structures.
>
> 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN,
> provided that we don't get too much into detail.
>
> 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the
> government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we
> don't discuss the form.
>
> 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable,
> transparent and democratic.
>
>
> * FORUM
>
> 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing.
>
> 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be
> "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan,
> as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it
> happen.
>
> 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an
> equal basis.
>
> 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent,
> accountable and democratic.
>
> 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue".
>
> 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact
> that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no
> duplication of work.
>
> 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and
> for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals.
>
> 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding
> documents.
>
> 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an
> "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it
> should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis.
>
> 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as
> a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should
> be used extensively to allow remote participation.
>
> 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan
> to drive its creation.
>
> 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of
> stakeholder representatives should be created as well.
>
> 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end
> of 2006.
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

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