[governance] oversight

[Ian Peter]

Watching this debate evolve I suggest a couple of possibilities.

1. Many of us believe that the unilateral control of root zone authorisation
function is unacceptable at present, but that the answer is that the
function of approving ICANN decisions on root zone is unnecessary. The
answer, then, is no root zone authorisation function at all rather than
multilateral control.

2. However, we are not going to win with an argument (extended from that )
that no oversight at all on a range of public policy issues is necessary.
Governments see a need for oversight. Given the US position on this, the
only governmental oversight likely to be acceptable to US is a strengthened
GAC.

Given what is likely to evolve at Tunis and beyond, a strengthened GAC
appears the only path forward that will satisfy both USG and other
governments wishes.

If it is to prevail, then, CS should be ready to comment on what a reformed
GAC might look like. I know that evolving policy positions on possibilities
is difficult, but if the above scenario is to occur, I believe

1. CS should support strengthened GAC as a solution to the oversight
function as regards ICANN related issues
2. CS should argue that the root zone authorisation function needs to be
more clearly understood and that, while the current situation is
unacceptable, evolution of the role of governments as regards any role in
this function  should occur through the reformed GAC.

OR

If you are really brave, argue outright that the authorisation function is
unnecessary, and that in line with past statements of direction and the
principles of private sector management inherent in the USG policy position,
they should drop the function immediately, not to be replaced. I like the
latter position - but can it cut at this late stage?




Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:14 AM
> To: Milton Mueller
> Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: 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
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release 
> Date: 21/10/2005
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005
 

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