[governance] oversight

[wcurrie at apc.org]

hi avri and milton

i agree that ICANN should become a fully independent multi-stakeholder
body.  what is the means of doing this? is one route to persuade the USG
to do this unilaterally, which they do not plan to do at present? Or is it
a matter of persuading all governments and stakeholders that this is the
best route to take and if so how can it be done?

can this be accomplished in the resumed prepcom before Tunis?

is this a task to be placed on the forum's agenda post-WSIS? to
investigate and make recommendations to the UN/USG?

is it a task that could be a component of a internet governance framework
convention? that is not to create multi-lateral government oversight of
ICANN but the conditions of its independence, its multi-stakeholder
character, its commitment to administrative justice and accountability.

or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a citizen's
commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence,
hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* proposal
to ICANN, UN and USG about it?

willie


> 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
>



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