[governance] oversight

[Milton Mueller]

Wolfgang:
A good reply, as usual. My comments and responses below.

>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 10/15/2005 6:34 AM >>>
Wolfgang:
>My problem with the EU proposal is that the borderline between 
>"the level of principle" and the " day to day operation" is unclear. 

Yes, and so is the distinction between "public policy" and "operation," as we pointed out as soon as the WGIG report was released. That is my main problem with the EU proposal as well.

>If the "level of principle" means, dealing with the TOP 16 list 
>and creating general frameworks "on the level of principle",  
>this would be not only okay for me, I think this is needed, in 
>particular if it comes to non-ICANN issues. But if I take the 
>story of .eu anf the "heavy legislation" (and the debate before 
>the Directive was adopted) I feel rather uncomfortable with 
>such a procedure.
> In this case, the "level of principle" does interfere rather 
>deep into the day to day operations. Ask EURID people about 
>their experiences.

Agreed, the .eu process stands as a serious warning about what it means to get governments involved. And do the EU people involved in WSIS understand this? 

>My criticism with your framework convention is 
>driven by the same argument: A heavy inter-governmental 
>cloud over the Internet 

By itself, a FC creates no intergovernmental cloud. It is a set of negotiations about how light or heavy the cloud should be, or even whether it should exist. And nothing happens until it is ratified by countries. A Council, on the other hand, creates a cloud. 

>if 15 western European countries need five years to 
>agree on a legislation for one single and simple issue like  
>.eu, you can speculate how long this will lastif 190+ UN 
>member states are involved)  

So what? If they can't agree, the status quo remains in place.

>risky because too much rain can come from the sky
> which will set the Internet on the gorund under water.

I confess I do not know what this metaphor means. What do you think is going on now? Wouldn't an FC process be more orderly? Again, nothing can come from a FC until and unless states agree. And if a more innovative approach is adopted and CS and PS are involved, then they have to agree in some way, too.
 
>To have an intergovernmental council (for the TOP 16 list, 
>including ICANN issues) with a "Private Sector Advisory 
>Committee" (PSAC) and an "Civil Society Advisory Committee" 
>(CSAC), both with qualified voting rights for issues which have 
>relevance for the private sector and civil society (users)  would 
>be much better. 

Disagree. A council creates a standing bureaucracy with a built-in incentive to justify its existence and expand its powers. An FC is by contrast a once-off event to set general rules. 

>To internationalize the authorization function of the 
>publication of zone files in the root is a bad idea. 
>USG should push ICANN to crate the condition that 
>this can be fully privatized. 

I keep asking people who have this position to explain to me how you privatize ICANN in any stable and long-term way without also getting the rest of the world's governments to agree that that is how things will be. If governments can agree to accept such a condition, then we are in effect negotiating a principle that DNS should be administered by the PS/CS without direct governmental oversight. In other words, US-based privatization does not really avoid the need for international agreement on the idea. 




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