[governance] oversight

[Adam Peake]

>Il giorno lun, 17-10-2005 alle 21:06 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>  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?
>
>It needs a host country agreement to prevent the country where it has
>its seat from controlling the global root servers and other Internet
>resources managed by ICANN, through its legislative powers.


I hadn't thought about the root servers: as you say, they are global, 
so how could a single govt control their operation. No one controls 
their operation now. The USG does have control (potential) over the 
root zone, etc., but that could be dealt with by changes to the IANA 
contract rather than a host country agreement or similar.

I saw some kind of host country agreement more as a way to inoculate 
ICANN from trade-related discrimination from domestic laws on 
sanctions, etc., as you mention below. (more comment below)


>Also, the
>HCA should prevent that country from discriminating access to those
>global resources and to their administration, for example through
>foreign trade regulations or visa requirements for meeting attendance.
>
>>  Could the US supply
>>  such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were
>>  guaranteed?
>
>I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is "would we
>accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA",
>the answer is definitely yes.
>
>>  And then what language would we like
>>  to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of
>>  language for the paper.)
>
>I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player.
>
>"We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference by the
>government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate
>international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such
>agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be
>overturned by the local government, and that all countries and
>stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by
>ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without
>being affected by the policies of the local government."

How about:

"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."

Keeping it country neutral is appropriate, so I don't agree with 
Robert's shorter version.

Thanks,

Adam


>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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