[governance] oversight

[wcurrie at apc.org]

Carlos, I agree. We should not say 'continued internationalisation'.

Arising from the WGIG report section, V.A. Recommendations related to
Internet governance mechanisms, there are two points that achieved nearly
universal consensus in PreCom-3 (with the exception of the US and elements
of the private sector):

- No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
international Internet governance.

- There should be a global multi-stakeholder forum to address
Internet-related public policy issues.

Model 2 states in point 57. There is no need for a specific oversight
organization. This implies that neither the USG nor a multilateral group
of governments should provide an oversight function. This opens the way
for an agreement on the internationalisation of ICANN on a
multi-stakeholder basis.

What can be achieved at Tunis is:

- an agreement on the internationalisation of ICANN along certain 
principles and timelines.

- an agreement about the forum, its mandate and composition.

What is not agreed (and is unlikely to be achieved) in Tunis is:

- any kind of UN role in internet governance oversight;

- any kind of inter-governmental oversight mechanism, such as the EU or
Iran proposed (or apppeared to propose) at PrepCom-3.

best regards
willie

__________________

> 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
>



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