[governance] oversight

[Adam Peake]

Discussion about oversight has been good.  But we 
need to move on from general ideas to 
contributions for the prepcom in Tunis.

Text of the statement the caucus made on oversight in Geneva is copied below.
Do you agree?
If not, what should be changed?
And can we turn this text into language suitable for the chair's paper?

Specifically, what should we say about a host 
country agreement.  I think the question we need 
to answer is what does ICANN need from a host 
country agreement and why? Could the US supply 
such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were 
guaranteed? And then what language would we like 
to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of 
language for the paper.)

Thanks,

Adam


(text of statement)

Statement on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, 29.09.05

Political Oversight

We recognize that the time has come for a change 
in the political oversight of the logical 
Internet infrastructure. We do not recommend the 
creation of a new inter-governmental oversight 
organization for domain names and IP addresses. 
However, we do recommend the following changes 
with regard to ICANN be implemented within a 
reasonable time frame:

1. The US Government recommits to handing over 
its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation 
to ICANN and the DNS root.

2. ICANN must ensure full and equal 
multi-stakeholder participation on its Board, and 
throughout its organizational structures of the 
community of Internet users, national 
governments, civil society, the technical 
community, business associations, non profit 
organizations and non-business organizations. 
Particular attention should be paid to developing 
country's participation.

3. ICANN must ensure that it establishes clear, 
transparent rules and procedures commensurate 
with international norms and principles for 
fair administrative decision-making to provide 
for predictable policy outcomes.

4. There should be a process for extraordinary 
appeal of ICANN'S decisions in the form of an 
independent multi-stakeholder review commission 
invoked on a case-by-case basis.

Note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an 
inter-governmental oversight structure, and we 
don't see an independent review process as a path 
towards that direction.

5. ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host 
country agreement to replace its California 
Incorporation, being careful to retain those 
aspects of its California Incorporation that 
enhance its accountability to the global Internet 
user community.

6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country 
agreement, must be required to comply with public 
policy requirements negotiated through 
international treaties in regard to, inter alia, 
human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender 
agreements and trade rules.

7. Governments, individuals, and international 
organizations, including NGOs, would have the 
right and responsibility of bringing violations 
of these requirements to the attention of ICANN 
and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached 
using ICANN internal processes, should have the 
right to invoke a binding appeals process.

8. Once all of the above conditions are met, the 
US Government shall transfer the IANA function to 
ICANN.

9. It is expected that the International 
multi-stakeholder community will take part in the 
process through participation in the ICANN 
process. It is also expected that the 
multi-stakeholder community will observe and 
comment on the progress made in this process 
through the proposed Forum.

END


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