[governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Adam Peake]

At 5:54 PM -0200 11/9/05, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>A bit late... but below are my "yes, no maybes" on the
>agreeement/disagreement list made by Vittorio.
>
>I agree with the idea of holding to the consensus we have already
>achieved. But... which one? Taking Vittorio's list below, let us
>acknowledge that only a very small minority of people (mostly from the
>North) are active in this discussion right now.


Carlos,

Remember that many of these statements have been 
discussed many times on this list. 300-400 copies 
of our response to the WGIG report were handed 
out to as many CS people as we could find during 
prepcom 3, and we near begged for comments at 
each CS content and themes meeting.  The 
statements we read during prepcom were usually 
discussed at meetings, and you might have noticed 
I have asked for comments a few times since.

But we should be very sensitive to how we 
describe support for (lack of) these ideas.  And 
who was involved.

Hope you can escape from your govt next week and 
join us, we missed you in Geneva.

Adam



>So any statement saying "a majority agrees with" something must be
>carefully explained. Which "majority"? This discussion is informal and I
>think we are at a point in which any formal statement may be only
>presented as "by the people/organizations quoted below" and explicitly
>signed.
>
>
>>* OVERSIGHT
>>
>>-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT
>>
>>1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in
>>multistakeholder settings.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a
>>governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles".
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>-- DNS OVERSIGHT
>>
>>3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be
>>governmental oversight over ICANN.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the
>>present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be
>>"anchored" to the United Nations.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes -- nor on the form of this "anchoring" for the ones agreeing to it.
>
>>6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the
>>DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where
>>governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable.
>> 
>>
>**no** -- there is no agreement here either. This oversight might not be
>regarding "expansion of areas of governmental approval", but might
>involve just a treaty or international agreement on the rules, criteria
>and procedures for creating, delegating and redelegating global domain
>names. Once the agreement is in place and an executive body (ICANN) is
>in charge of carrying it out, oversight action on this body might be
>carried out by appeal, meaning that any instance or entity which feels
>adversely affected by the application of the agreement might seek help
>of an oversight body regarding the agreement. So, it may be more complex
>than just "expanding areas".
>
>>7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in
>>the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable.
>> 
>>
>
>yes
>
>>8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved
>>below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations".
>>
>> 
>>
>yes -- but notice that all the troubles happen at the Board level (it is
>not staff that redelegates .net, decides on .xxx and determines temporal
>registration rules for .travel, for instance), so no real big deal here.
>
>>9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil
>>society (including individual users, the academic community, the free
>>software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy
>>making structures.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN,
>>provided that we don't get too much into detail.
>> 
>>
>???
>
>>11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the
>>government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we
>  >don't discuss the form.
>> 
>>
>In other words, we have agreement on the need to make Icann independent,
>but not on the way or form to do it. This is really vague, but if this
>is the agreement, OK.
>
>>12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable,
>>transparent and democratic.
>> 
>>
>A bit vague also (accountable to whom? to the general public I guess),
>but agreeable.
>
>>
>>* FORUM
>>
>>13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be
>>"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan,
>>as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it
>>happen.
>>
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an
>>equal basis.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent,
>>accountable and democratic.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue".
>> 
>>
>well, this will happen anyway :)
>
>>18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact
>>that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no
>>duplication of work.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and
>>for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding
>>documents.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an
>>"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it
>>should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as
>>a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should
>>be used extensively to allow remote participation.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan
>>to drive its creation.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of
>>stakeholder representatives should be created as well.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>>25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end
>>of 2006.
>> 
>>
>yes
>
>--c.a.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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