[governance] oversight

[ian.peter at ianpeter.com]

Quoting Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> 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.
>

I agree with strengthening mechanisms in ICANN to allow removal of 
authorisation
function - maybe appeal mechanism rather than review mechanism, seeing that
nothing gets through ICANN processes for recommended change here without
extensive consultation including with governments in the case of cctlds?

Ian



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