[governance] oversight

[Danny Butt]

Adam, all

Of course, those of you on the ground in Tunis should ultimately  
decide on strategy, but I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the  
"roadmap for USG face-saving" being put into a civil society  
statement. From my pov, the issue about ccTLDs is basically  
intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about  
equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the  
message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single  
Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to  
international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder  
statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a  
phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most  
of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from  
us.   That's just my view. If we're going to be ignored, at least let  
it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak  
'player' - we'll be in a better place in 10 years time, when Lee  
suggests that some real changes might happen :).

I'd like to see a statement from USG along the lines you suggest,  
which would be better than the current situation. I just don't  
believe us putting it into a formal statement will make it happen, as  
the primary leverage to extract such a statement would be through  
other govts. This could well happen through the horsetrading anyway.  
I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our  
statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our  
areas of responsibility. Your original oversight text was tight.

Regards,

Danny

On 20/10/2005, at 1:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> 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