[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Raul Echeberria]

Vittorio:

This is good summary.
My suggestion is that in those points in which tehere is not agreement 
we can not waste time trying to force impossible agreements.
What we should do is to look for where the agreement is possible.

For example: there is not agreement regarding oversight, but there is 
agreement (i guess) in stating a principle in the sense that the 
governments could (it will depend later on the agreements among the 
governments themselves)  have an improved role in ICANN.
This is a way of avoiding the points in which the agreement is not 
possible, making a more general statement.

This is the challenge of the summit itself, to look for the common ground.

Raúl



Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>Hello,
>
>
>
>* 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.
>  
>

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