[governance] oversight

[Avri Doria]

On 25 okt 2005, at 18.03, Ian Peter wrote:

>
> 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?

I think that a final sanity check is necessary, but not an  
authorization step.

ICANN could create a review committee for all rzf changes, which  
would be subject to all of ICANN internal governance and policy  
procedures, and subject to the same external audit and appeals  
mechanisms.

I don't see any reason to give GAC primacy in this, though they  
should be a part of the internal ICANN governance that sets the  
policy, does internal reviews with the rest of the stakeholders, and  
responds to the audits.

ICANN internal governance process would need ot change to give GAC  
the f2f time they need to make their decisions - the problem today at  
leas is that govts are incapable of moving at internet speeds and  
cannot review things on line - they have to meet f2f, though perhaps  
the GAC could in its reform find a way to move more quickly.

a.

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