[governance] oversight

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Adam,

I think your suggestion below together with Milton' suggestion could likely
be a good way to breaking some deadlock, even with all those "ifs". 

Meanwhile, looking forward to see what your sources tell you on how best to
have an agreement to some "host country" agreement equivalent throught the
path of least resistance.

Laina


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:59 AM
To: Danny Butt; Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight

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

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