[governance] oversight

[Danny Butt]

Hi Adam

My apologies for that misreading, what you have proposed sounds OK.

I also agree with Milton's reservations about the "independent  
appeals process" - and this could be an area that intergovernmental  
oversight is important - I don't have the expertise to draft anything  
about that though. I'm not sure if this is exactly what Milton is  
saying, but my POV is that the GAC is basically attempting to be an  
intergovernmental mechanism without the representativeness or  
resource support that proper intergovernmental organisations have to  
ensure e.g. developing country participation. So it's really a worst  
of both worlds.

Regards

Danny




On 20/10/2005, at 8:48 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Danny, Hi.
>
> Apologies for any confusion.
>
> I am not suggesting a position statement for Tunis. Rather this is  
> something that should be done before Tunis. Ideal being that the US  
> Govt makes a statement along the lines suggested that becomes the  
> basis for discussions at the resumed prepcom. It would be too late  
> just to deliver some text once were there. I realize that it is  
> unlikely to happen, but think it worth trying.
>
> Nothing I am suggesting is intended to be a retreat from our  
> position regarding the need to end the USG's preeminent role in  
> global governance of logical infrastructure. As far as I am  
> concerned our position's pretty much the same as it was when we  
> responded to the WGIG report <http://www.net-gov.org/files/ 
> co55.pdf> (see para 50-63). The suggestion that the US government  
> make a statement saying it would not abuse the root zone/take  
> unilateral action is in there (I know, I suggested it...). Language  
> about a host country agreement is also in there. What's changed  
> recently is we have tried better understand what this suggestion  
> about a host country agreement means and if there are alternatives/ 
> improvements, etc.
>
> Attached is a statement about oversight read during the Geneva  
> prepcom. I think this is pretty much our position (I would suggest  
> some changes, but it's pretty much OK.)
>
> I think govt positions after the last prepcom have polarized. Seen  
> the EU come out with a statement that is not favorable to the ideas  
> and principles we have been pushing, and the US reacting with a  
> hardening of its position (it seems to have stopped negotiating and  
> started spinning the situation in the press and with industry.) To  
> say nothing of the joy I think we saw from China, Iran etc that  
> things were perhaps moving their way and Utsumi saying the ITU  
> could always help out and run things...
>
> I've no interest in saving the US govt's face -- I want civil  
> society to have a chance of seeing its positions adopted. Which  
> they won't be if any compromise in Tunis is between extreme  
> positions, and I expect they won't be if the outcome of Tunis is  
> stalemate.
>
> I think we still need to prepare statement of oversight (ICANN,  
> root zone, etc.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> At 1:51 PM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>>
>>  >
>>
>> <Oversight.rtf>
>

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