[governance] oversight

[Carlos Afonso]

wcurrie at apc.org wrote:

>hi
>
>It is interesting that USG spoke in favour of the Argentinian proposal at
>Prep-Com 3 when it contains reference to:
>
>The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions;
>
>  
>
The point is that the US has a different perception of this, and so does 
ICANN (and ISOC and...), of course. For them ICANN is already in this 
process and you do not need to change anything for it to develop further 
("evolution"!). Arguments like the CEO is an Australian and several 
others of the same sort. To say we see a "continued 
internationalization" of ICANN is to agree with this US view. Do we want 
this?

During Prepcom 3 it was clear ISOC, ICANN, the USG and some others 
adopted the tactics to build a proposal formally headed by the 
Argentinians, to counteract a tendency in the EU position and the group 
of "like-minded countries". I am against subscribing to it, unless we 
have decided we are no longer really adhering to para 48 of the WGIG 
report. If we want to take it as a basis, there is a lot of crucial 
rewriting to be done.

>So perhaps it would be worth putting something concrete down for the Tunis
>Prep-Com as to how this would work in practice over what timeline.
>  
>
I think that CS might be going in the wrong direction if it takes for 
granted that the US is willing to accept any non-cosmetic modification 
in the current ICANN arrangement. It is clear congress and the federal 
government will be united against touching ICANN and the current legal 
arrangement in any way. We will be losing time here and playing into its 
hands.

Unless this is what current CS de facto leadership (the most regular and 
dedicated participants of the debate) wants... The view trying to 
prevail seems to be now: let us do a forum, hope the UN agrees to create 
a WG to build it, and hope it will have legitimacy (not to speak of 
adequate pluralist representation, which we are not discussing either) 
and will be heard by everyone etc etc, and leave the oversight question 
to an "evolutionary" process...

I agree with the forum, of course, but I do not agree with leaving 
things as they are or hoping for "evolution in the right direction" 
(which one?) regarding oversight. Besides, we keep forgeting we have 
dozens of other governance components CS keeps leaving aside or just 
mentioning superficially, and which badly need international coordination.

frt rgds

--c.a.


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