[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Nov 10 07:10:57 EST 2005
Parminder, thanks. comment below.
At 10:45 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote:
>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.
This was my concern when I read your earlier
messages. To be honest, I cannot remember anyone
from civil society saying they want governmental
control over the Internet. With respect,
borrowing your favorite response, it is
*completely unacceptable*.
Anyway. I think we have lost the opportunity to
develop our positions on "oversight". Perhaps we
will be able to have a more productive discussion
when we are together in Tunis. I hope so.
I think we need to recognize that what was agreed
long ago remains. It is not carved in stone, but
the basis for our work. It cannot be thrown out
on a whim. And we will all be careful to note
your and other comments when we come to drafting
caucus comments for the prepcom.
Thanks,
Adam
>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
More information about the Governance
mailing list