[governance] oversight

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 25 okt 2005, at 16.16, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 10/25/2005 11:14 AM >>>
>>>>
>> 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
>> political  oversight and I believe that the original intention of the
>>
>
>
>> MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where there would no
>> longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal
>> should remain.
>>
>
> I am comfortable with that conclusion, as you should know by now.  
> But I
> insist on offering four cautions:
>
> 1) "Oversight" means different things to different people. I would  
> hope
> that you could mount better arguments exaplining why _as a matter of
> principle_ or _as a rule_ governments should not be involved.

Loaded question, i.e loading by conflating 2 separate issues:
- oversight and its definition
- the involvement of governments

I am aware that there are many definitons of oversight - including "a  
mistake resulting from inattention"  which may or may not be at issue  
here, but is probably not the definition we are talking about.

I think that in this discussion the operative definition is one that  
includes: external management of one group by another group.

So, I am arguing that there should be no oversight of this kind.

There are those who argue that the appeals and auditing mechanism  
that I suggest are a form of oversight (both those for and those  
against these mechanisms).  I disagree with this, as these bodies do  
not provide management, which is the the goal of oversight.  Rather  
they provide accountability and a pressure release mechanisms when  
things boil over inside the organization.

The other possibility is the oversight can be internal and thus a  
board of directors can be considered oversight.  While I can agree,  
from my point of view as an amateur pedant, that this might be  
defined as oversight, to do so would force us to always refer to  
internal or external oversight.  So, to make my point clear, I am  
against all external forms of oversight.  I do not advocate removing  
the board of ICANN, though i do advocate reforming it (a topic for  
another time and perhaps even another list)

As to government participation, if you had not overlooked my other  
statement, you would know that i do not argue for the absence of  
government involvement, just the absence of government primacy.  I  
think government, i.e. the GAC - reformed or otherwise, should be  
full and equal participant in ICANN.   And yes, I recognize that it  
does not now have such a role.

>
> 2) Cutting off ICANN from any external accountability is not the
> answer. Even your own proposal calls for some forms of external
> accountability/oversight, as well as extensive internal reforms.

Exactly.  Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of  
external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of  
accountability.

>
> 3) Don't forget the GAC. US will respond - and in fact, is  
> responding -
> to pressure on ICANN by moving for a stronger role for GAC. GAC is  
> just
> a collection of governments. So when you call for working within  
> ICANN,
> are you leading us into another system dominated by govts?


not dominated by govts but with the full and equal participations of  
governments.  I advocate turning ICANN into a fully multistakeholder  
organization with transparency, accountability and openness and with  
all participants on an equal footing.


>
> 4) ICANN is a creature of the USG. As someone who has been there from
> the beginning, there is no doubt in my mind that the current oversight
> and governance structure of ICANN biases policy making processes  
> towards
> policy outcomes desired by the USG, in some cases for better, in some
> cases for worse. Since strong US political oversight has existed since
> the beginning of ICANN, it is by no means clear how ICANN will behave
> once it is gone. Add to that the calculus associated with issue #3
> above, and perhaps you can see why, though thinking along similar  
> lines,
> I feel less enthusiastic than you about "no oversight."

I think that ICANN has to evolve.  and I think that ones origins do  
not determine the nature of the possible evolution.  the Internet was  
largely a US military creation (yes i know there is lots of  
disagreement about the exact ontogeny) and yet it is clearly evolving  
into something beyond its original conceptions.  Likewise i think any  
individual or organization can evolve in a manner that is not bound  
to the culture of its origins but is rather determined by its  
environment.  So, i beleive that given the right environment, ICANN  
can evolve into a world class international organization that for the  
first time shows that all stakeholders can fully participate in  
governance.  ICANN has many faults, but I very much think it is the  
best chance we have for creating a real MSH governed organization.

I would like to ask you, why you think that something this WSIS, i.e  
the governments who exclude CS and PS from the discussions, cooks up  
could possibly be any better then working to reform ICANN.

>
>
>> In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy
>> arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for
>>
>
>
> Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but who among CS has been
> spending a lot of energy arguing for multilateral oversight?
>

I may be wrong, but I think I see that trend in the background - to  
argue that the US should not have unilateral control, is in effect to  
argue for multilateral control.  IMO, we should be arguing for no  
external control by governments - which includes no continuation of  
the US control.

a.

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