[governance] oversight

[Adam Peake]

Danny, Hi.

I've asked a few people for advice on how 
exemptions of the type I mentioned might be 
negotiated. If they could only be done with 
Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. 
Let's see.

Anyway.  I've been wondering about this for a 
while and think these possible exemptions from US 
trade law might be part of a large piece.  The 
"host country agreement" issue represents one set 
of concerns governments have with the US' 
influence over ICANN.  Other issue is of course 
the root zone: IANA contract and MoU.  Milton 
read a statement in Geneva (text below) that 
elaborated on recommendations we made in our 
response to the WGIG report. Basically a 
suggestion that the US government make a "formal 
and explicit commitment that it will take no 
action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the 
root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict 
or veto root zone file alterations approved by 
independent and legitimate ICANN processes."

I think if we combine the suggestion about 
offering immunities to ICANN on certain matters 
with this commitment not to act against the 
interests of others via the root, to free ICANN 
from the MoU, etc., then we are suggesting a way 
for the US to show that it remains a good and 
safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain 
to itself, and perhaps without need to go to 
Congress.) Other governments should have their 
main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few steps 
forward, might be an acceptable compromise.

If the US agrees to make a statement and 
commitments then the EU and some others might 
reasonably drop requests for greater govt 
involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving 
that discussion until the establishment of the 
forum (when nations might be able to speak for 
themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving 
the forum and issue of importance to kick off 
with.) It might be enough to say that progress 
has been made, everyone reassured and the 
opportunity for meaningful further debate exists.

A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away...

Thanks,

Adam


Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3:

"Civil society believes that the Internet's value 
is created by the participation and cooperation 
of people all over the world. The Internet is 
global, not national. Therefore, "No single 
Government should have a pre-eminent role in 
relation to international Internet governance." 
The WGIG report came to a consensus on that 
position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the 
WGIG Report. Civil society expresses its strong 
support for that conclusion.

     We recognize, however, that it is not enough 
to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. 
Feasible methods of moving forward must be 
proposed. We offer the following recommendation:

     The US government agreed in its June 30 
Statement that governments have legitimate public 
policy and sovereignty  concerns with respect to 
the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed 
the opportunity for further dialogue on  these 
issues. In keeping with those statements, the US 
government should make a formal and explicit 
commitment that it will take no action to 
unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter 
ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root 
zone file alterations approved by independent and 
legitimate ICANN processes.

     Such a commitment from the US would be a step 
forward in multi- stakeholder efforts to come to 
a long term resolution of the controversies 
surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. 
At the same time, it would not be a difficult or 
costly commitment to make,  because it is already 
a tacit principle underlying ICANN and the US 
government's methods of supervising ICANN. 
Failure to make such a commitment, on the other 
hand, can only contribute to the further 
politicization of what should be a neutral 
coordination function.

     We hope that governments, business and civil 
society can make this simple commitment the basis 
for moving forward." (end quote)


At 12:06 AM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote:
>Late to this but just to say I support Adam's text on oversight - 
>with thanks.
>
>I'm also not sure that I agree with Laina's suggestion that there 
>needs to be timelines to prevent it from being vaporware. As I read 
>it the goal is not to have our plan adopted outright (well, that 
>would be nice but it will never happen), but to have our language and 
>goals adopted in whatever decisions are made going forward. In my 
>experience, dates just provide people an excuse to ignore the 
>substantive points ("these timelines are totally unreasonable, we 
>can't do this").
>
>Regards,
>
>Danny
>--
>http://www.dannybutt.net
>
>On 19/10/2005, at 1:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>  "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."
>
>_______________________________________________
>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