[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)]

Parminder

On 11/10/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Adam
>
> >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet
> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about
> >>ICANN.  Personally, I think it's an excellent paper.
>
> >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working
> >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about
> >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy
> >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>>
>
> In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the analysis
> in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome.
>
> The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left
> without political oversight - which is unacceptable -

Why is it unacceptable?  And what exactly do you mean by "political
oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments?

Be specific please.

Thanks,

Adam




> and also quite at
> variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response to
> WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework
> convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political
> oversight (if that can be  a meaningful concept). Such a move towards
> establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper by
> Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings.
>
> The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader
> oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later.
> There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are
> horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not be
> considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is the
> whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it
> has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no point
> in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the
> broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I
> have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always
> problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation.
>
> Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to WGIG
> report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG
> Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/)
>
> Parminder
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
>
> We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment.
>
> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet
> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about
> ICANN.  Personally, I think it's an excellent paper.
>
> This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working
> definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about
> ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy
> supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers."
>
> I would be interested to hear opinions on this.
>
> Can you support this paper?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >=================
> >Political Oversight of ICANN
> >=================
> >
> >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the
> >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN.
> >
> >  http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
> >
> >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in
> >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower
> >problem of ICANN's oversight.
> >
> >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to
> >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can
> >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids
> >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet.
> >
> >The paper can be downloaded here:
> >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf
> >
> >www.internetgovernance.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!

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