[governance] oversight

[Carlos Afonso]

wcurrie at apc.org wrote:

>yes, but that does not mean that civil society should not engage with what
>that continued internationalisation of ICANN should mean in practice.
>
>There is a contradiction between the NTIA, State Department, and Congress
>resolutions, which do not provide for the internationalisation of ICANN in
>any substantial manner and the Argentina proposal which does talk about
>the continued internationalisation of ICANN. So we should be able to call
>the USG on this contradiction by making clear what we understand by the
>internationalisation of ICANN, i.e. that no single country should have a
>pre-eminent role in relation to ICANN and ICANN should be transformed into
>a multi-stakeholder body, not remain a private sector-dominated body and
>so on. And set up a mechanism to negotiate this, i.e. not simply accept
>USG, ISOC and ICANN's understanding of the Argentina proposal.
>  
>

We should understand it as follows: there is no internationalization 
process right now (except comestic measures), so we would not use the 
term "continued internationalization". What you mean in the second 
paragraph above (with which I agree) is that this process needs to be 
*started*, and this is what we (CS) want, I presume.

frt rgds

--c.a.


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