[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Ian Peter]

Trying to summarise where we are up to/back to/currently at as regards
oversight role 

Most of us see the unilateral control by USG as unacceptable in the long
term.

>From there on we probably have broad agreement as regards general public
policy oversight - yes, there is a role for governments in public policy
along with other stakeholders. (I haven't yet seen an argument that
governments have no role in public policy, and I haven't seen an argument
within CS that public policy is the sole domain of governments)

When we get into our current cyclical arguments on "all governments vs no
governments" we are generally talking about root zone authorisation role.

I content that the latter is a simple day to day management function and is
covered in our agreement that governments should not be involved in day to
day operations. Everything that matters about this is worked through
currently with good multistakeholder procedures, except for an unnecessary
and anachronistic authorisation function.

When the policy process has been carried out, this is just day to day
management stuff. The answer, then, is get USG out of the root, don't
replace the function, and shore up the current processes if necessary.








Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:18 AM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
> 
> 
> On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> > Adam wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say 
> > that - yes I want governmental control over Internet.
> >
> 
> This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement.  I 
> would prefer for governments to have no role in oversight.  
> Recognizing that this impossible I see it as an acceptable 
> compromise to share governance of the internet with governments.
> 
> If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of 
> governance i think we will have failed.  And yes, I recognize 
> that we don't all have the same definition of 
> multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip and we don't all 
> support its essential transforming importance.  To me, 
> however, this is more important then any of the specific 
> issues of modality.  The modalities of multstakeholderism are 
> complex and I see the Forum as a space where these issues can 
> be thrashed out.
> 
> a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release 
> Date: 5/11/2005
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005
 

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