[governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Adam Peake]

At 11:26 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote:
>I already said that if we speak about ICANN reform without clarifying on its
>political oversight - it will be taken as we either will like to keep
>present oversight mechanism (US) or have no oversight. And that's a problem
>from my point of view....
>
>However, if we clearly agree on the political oversight part - as for
>example recommending option 3 of WGIG report, than to mention these points
>(as mentioned in your mail below) is perfectly fine....
>
>And I don't think 'host country agreement'; is a problematic term as such
>for any or 'many governments' - but that if the political oversight
>arrangements are clear to be multi-lateral.


Parminder,

You missed earlier discussion about this. We thought ICANN did not 
need a host country agreement in the typical sense, so rather than 
creating expectations of diplomatic immunities, schooling 
arrangements, etc. it seemed sensible to be specific about what we 
thought ICANN needed to provide global services equitably. What you 
saw is the result.

For what it's worth, quite a number of govt people we spoke to 
advised against using "host country agreement".

Adam



>  Any agency finally has to be
>located in one country or the other - and therefore has to have a host
>country arrangement.
>
>
>Parminder
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
>(ajp at glocom.ac.jp)
>Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:19 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to
>
>And this is OK, or not acceptable:
>
>"Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide
>privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to
>provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such
>binding commitments should ensure that:
>
>* decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government;
>* all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the
>resources managed by ICANN and its related entities;
>* ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in
>keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to
>provide and receive DNS services globally, and
>* all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's
>Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies
>of any single government."
>
>(I would like to change "host government", best to remove all
>suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a
>problematic term for many governments.)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>_______________________________________________
>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