[governance] oversight

Tue Oct 25 12:04:27 EDT 2005

I fully support Avri´s approach. We should be very carefully avoid to be trapped and pulled into a wrong direction. 

I have argued the last weeks also in discussions with DOC, EU, GAC members that to "internationalize" governmental oversight for IP addresses, Domain Names and Root Zone file management and root server operations makes no sense, creates new burocracies, drives costs and slows down innovations and risk to become misused as a insturment to violate human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression or user rights like the right to share information.  

The answer from governmental people is always the same: The internet is too important to let it alone. This is correct. But the question is where is the right place and level for governmental involvement?  

The solution, at least in my eyes, is 
a. to make a difference between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operations" as it is done in the EU proposal (unfortunately in a very vague sense) and
b. to stick to the WGIG working definition which has made clear that Internet Governance is more than government and more than the ICANN issues. WGIG identified the "top 16 list" which includes both ICANN and Non-ICANN issues and helps governments to find a place for the "execution of oversight" on the level of principles in areas like cybercrime, spam, IPR, Trade, Taxation, Accounting Rates, eCommerce  etc. 

The conclusion of WGIG was to have for each of the individual key issues a special governance mechanism which has to be designed bottom up to the special needs and challenges which come with this issue. There is no "one size fits all". And it was also clear that each of the different governance model should be based on multistakeholderism, but in different configurations. While the fight against cybercrime could be led by governments, they should not exclude but include also PS and CS. On the other hand private sector leadership in managing the core ressolurce have proffed to be the best solution, but here there should be also channels for governmental involvement, where needed. GAC is one example, but certainly GAC has to be reformed. 

The problem with overisght is that the understanding is very often a "top down approach". Elsewhere in the sky is a powerful body/person/dictator who decides and execute it down the layers of a hierarchy. But here is the challenge bottom up and networks, not top down and hierachies. And it the tradtional understanding is also that this is about "leadership". Who is the boss. But ewhat is needed is not leadership per se but shared responsibility by bringing the strengths of different stakeholders with different capacities together to create an enabling environment for billion of internet users.  

If it gets concrete, on of the biggest problems is indeed that Ambassador Gross argued for no governmental involvment in the management of the core ressources in the day to day operations and described correctly the function of the authorization oif publication of zone files in the root as part of the day to day operations. And here is the inconsistent point: If the US government means what it says it has to offer the world a plan how to end this function and to make sure that ICANN/IANA in cooperation with a trusted neutral third party guarantee that the execution of this function will strengthen the stability and security of the Internet. As long as the US argues that the US wiull be the only government in the world which acts not only "on the level of principle" but has a concrete function in the "day to day operations" we will have a continues political struggle which could lead to senseless cyberwars.  

The Civil Society Internet Governance Tunis Declaration should be very clear in the call for full self-management of the unlimited core ressources of the informaiton age by the concrned and affected consitutneices, that is mainly the provider and user of all kind of services, that is the "netizens which need the "core ressources" likle "citizens" need air and water. 

best

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Di 25.10.2005 17:14
An: Milton Mueller
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight

Hi,

I don't for a second pretend that it doesn't exist.  In fact I 
strongly object to the political oversight that exists.

What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations for 
oversight is the wrong issue.  I don't think there should be polical 
oversight and I believe that the original intention of the MOU was to 
eventually evolve to a point where therre would no longer be 
political oversight.  And that is what I believe the goal should remain.

In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy 
arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for 
replacing oversight with an fully independent ICANN with appeals and 
auditing mechanisms.  I do not understand why we would fight to go 
from one wrong (US control) to another wrong (multilateral 
international control or inter-governmental control).

To go one step further.  While I am against oversight of any sort, if 
there were to be oversight, the only sort that would be acceptable 
would be fully multistakeholder oversight.  And even if I believed in 
external oversight, I would not believe that this could be achieved 
at this point in time.

a.

On 25 okt 2005, at 10.53, Milton Mueller wrote:

>
>
>>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 10/24/2005 11:17
>>>>
> AM >>>
>
>> In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do
>>
> more than
>
>> involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an oversight 
>> role. If
>>
> there
>
>> is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder.
>>
>
> Bertrand: both you and Avri overlook the importance of the ICANN MoU
> with the US Department of Commerce. That IS oversight, of an extensive
> sort. So political oversight exists. Let's not pretend that it 
> doesn't.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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