[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Parminder]

Adam wrote:

>>>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.>>>

Sorry, I thought I have made my position clear in many mails - and therefore
took it to be known....

By political oversight I mean policy making authority over ICANN - however
minimum, and certainly, clearly defined by principles and rules, that need
to be laid out. And yes, only global governance system that can be
considered legitimate in present circumstances is one which has a
inter-governmental basis - though new forms can be tried here - and  CS
needs to find spaces in this new system for IG to make it more accountable
and representative.  

I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say that -
yes I want governmental control over Internet. 

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:16 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

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