[governance] oversight

Wed Oct 26 10:57:18 EDT 2005

OK.  Multistakeholder oversight.  How about the Argentinean proposal?

<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt18.html>

On oversight it says:

"We further recommend an evolutionary approach to 
existing arrangements which aims to ensure that 
they operate in an efficient, transparent, and 
democratic multistakeholder fashion, and also to 
ensure equitable resource distribution leading to 
internationalized functions of the Internet, in 
particular with the following actions:

  * The reinforcement of the role of Governments 
in ICANN decision making with regard to relevant 
Internet public policy issues;
  * The reinforcement of the Internet Regional 
Resource Management Institutions, to ensure 
regional autonomy in Internet resource management;
  * The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions;
  * The strengthening of the participation of 
developing countries in specialized institutions 
for the technical management and standardization 
Internet bodies.

Call for the follow up of this evolutionary 
approach which should be in the context of 
relevant international institutions, and 
coordinated by the UN system.

We call upon the UN Secretary General to organize 
the forum as soon as possible in 2006.

We encourage also to establish several fora at 
national, regional and global levels to discuss 
and collaborate on Internet expansion and 
dissemination and to support development efforts 
to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals."

I don't like "and coordinated by the UN system." 
And rather than what's in the second bullet, 
could be more direct and say "support the RIRs to 
ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource 
management;"

Anyway, I think it's worth us looking at this 
Argentinean proposal, it seems to be quite 
popular.

Adam

At 5:15 PM -0400 10/25/05, Avri Doria wrote:
>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