[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Jacqueline Morris]

Good point Raul
Let's work on where we have agreement.
Jacqueline

On 11/9/05, Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net> wrote:
> 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
>


--
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