[governance] oversight

[Milton Mueller]

A couple of responses. First, keep in mind that we have more agreement
on goals than you seem to allow. I just think I am more realistic about
constraints and means of moving froim point A to point B.

The object of "oversight" is accountability, I think we would agree.
You like that word better? But all accountability mechanisms at some
point involve the ability of one organization/group/individual to
intervene in the activities of another, which is how you define
"oversight." If you are not accountable _to_ someone or something you
are not accountable at all. And if you pick your own judges, as you
propose ICANN should do, you are not accountable. And since we already
have direct experience with ICANN sloughing off its responsibility to
create an independent review process (a fact you repeatedly ignore) I
wonder how we make it accountable without some form of external
oversight. And if you say, "we don't release ICANN from the MoU until it
creates a real appeals process" then you have backed yourself into
governmental oversight, haven't you? Because who administers this MoU?

>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.

Well maybe. But here I suspect you may be naive about govts. Look at
what you say about govts below (these are the people who kick us out of
meetings - well, they do that in ICANN, too!) Ian has pointed out that
governments believe that they should be in control of Internet public
policy, and he is correct. Moreover, governments ARE in control of
Itnernet public policy within their jurisdictions. The idea that they
can and will somehow settle into place as "equal partners" in a
multistakeholder ICANN regime is hard to swallow. Take a look at the
progress of GAC since its inception; it is a story of ever-increasing
assertions of authority. Compare its powers and role with that of the
ALAC, which nominally enjoys the same status. What you are saying, my
friend, is that lions and rabbits should inhabit the same cage as
"peers." 

The inherently unequal status of govts and ps/cs is one reason why the
idea of limited, carefully defined, constrainted political oversight
OUTSIDE of ICANN might in fact be a better option. Get governments to
explicitly delegate certain powers to the private parties, then leave
them alone, subject to appellate, rule-oriented interventions. 

>Exactly.  Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of 

>external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of  
>accountability.

Here we don't disagree at all, you just refuse to call "external
auditing and appeals" oversight, and I do call it that. 

>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.

See comments above. Governments may not accept equal footing.

>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.

Part of creating the "right environment" is for govts to accept - and
for progressive liberal govts to actively work for - the idea of
releasing authority and delegating it to private actors. You will never
get powers governments currently have unless they agree to give them up.
That's all I am saying. 

>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.

Fair question. Of course, I believe in working in both environments.
But one (WSIS) has served as an important check on the other (ICANN).
And vice-versa.  

As someone with several years more experience with ICANN than you
(sorry to pull rank, but its true) I have seen directly the major
difference WSIS has made in ICANN's responsiveness. Before WSIS, ICANN
was ready and willing to kick out CS too - indeed, it abolished its
elections and turned the ALAC into a company union and for a time
attempted to get ALAC to supersede and erase NCUC because it was truly
independent and critical. Since the WSIS challenge, I have seen (perhaps
superficial) changes in attitude and some significant movement on
critical issues, such as Whois. 

So yes, if we give all authority to govts, they will surely screw us.
But if we can somehow balance the powers of governments against the
powers of the private sector/USG/ICANN axis, we might be better off.
Politics ain't easy.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance