[governance] oversight
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Tue Oct 18 09:52:48 EDT 2005
Adam I also like your new paragraph, seems to point us in the right
direction. As Jeanette and Robert wish, everyone should keep focusing on
text. I for one, and no offense to our Canadian neighbors, see little
point in massaging any of the miscellaneous government texts, rather
CS`should focus on what CS wants/thinks.
And since folks have asked....
With regard to Congress, I was hinting and now will state that if the
outcome in Tunis is something the business communty does not accept,
there will for sure be at the least Congressional hearings. And
subsequent bills will be meant to show that the Bush admin did not 'lose
the Internet.' But as was also noted if things are going in this
driection there's all kinds of diplomatic stalling tactics that can be
employed. Which everyone knows, so it will be the usual game of
brinkmanship and if either side overplays its hand, nothing happens.
Also, yes seeking a waiver to trade sanctions etc would mean applying
to the relevant agency, ie Commerce Dept.
So in my opinion a 'lightweight' host country agreement specifying
terms along the lines of what you are suggesting Adam, and negotiated
between Commerce/NTIA & ICANN, with the rest of the world looking over
both parties shoulders is probably still needed. Since I don't see other
nations being happy relying on case-by-case waivers from DOC. IF this
can be done at the level of NTIA then there's a shot at reasonably
speedy progress, anything higher than that and/or directly involving
Congress well, see you in Tunis 2015. Ok, I'm exaggerating maybe, make
that Tunis 2010 : ).
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/18/2005 8:43 AM >>>
>On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote:
>
>> And yes Congress will get in on the Act.
>
>isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US?
Wondering about this while reading the
(interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a
different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act
of Congress the other by a statement of policy of
the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not
itself have the force and effect of law.")
I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host
country agreement" to free ICANN from, and
whether it's actually a host country agreement in
the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats
from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something
else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it
needs to be able to conduct is operations
globally without any restriction (potential or
real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote
below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i
thought ICANN needed:
"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."
How does a US organization usually get immunity
from trade sanctions and the like, by application
to the relevant agency (State, Treasury,
Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by
congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's
the former, then perhaps we have something to
offer to the US delegation as a compromise.
Adam
>And
>
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>wrote
>
>
>> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of
>> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes?
>
>not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is
>is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider
>changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so
>yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of
>a post MOU plan.
>
>a.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
__________________________
>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/18/2005 8:43 AM >>>
>On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote:
>
>> And yes Congress will get in on the Act.
>
>isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US?
Wondering about this while reading the
(interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a
different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act
of Congress the other by a statement of policy of
the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not
itself have the force and effect of law.")
I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host
country agreement" to free ICANN from, and
whether it's actually a host country agreement in
the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats
from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something
else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it
needs to be able to conduct is operations
globally without any restriction (potential or
real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote
below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i
thought ICANN needed:
"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."
How does a US organization usually get immunity
from trade sanctions and the like, by application
to the relevant agency (State, Treasury,
Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by
congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's
the former, then perhaps we have something to
offer to the US delegation as a compromise.
Adam
>And
>
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>wrote
>
>
>> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of
>> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes?
>
>not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is
>is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider
>changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so
>yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of
>a post MOU plan.
>
>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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list