[governance] oversight

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

I think Danny, perhaps your suggestion could possibly involve seeing how GAC
can function better to "fix" what some gov may not be happy with, with
inputs from multistakholders on its reform of course ...or are we talking
about creating something new.

As for Jeanette's summary, I agree that some of the issues could be stated
as;

 >Among the elements we discussed were:
>
> *ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition
> *host country agreement
> *independent appeals body
>
> What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could  
> cover in
> addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work.

I agree with these points, with the exception of the term "host country
agreement". I understand the spirit of it, ie to make ICANN more of an
international body than a US not for profit organisation. If so, then yes I
agree. But I agree with previous discussions that we need to be careful that
"host country agreement" be clearly defined. In most cases, this term is
used to protect the body to hold it above national law. If we don't
construct it right, ICANN could get more immunity than it currently has. The
agreement needs to be clearer and we need to see how it can be made
accountable to a larger community, as you said than just going via the US
laws e.g. derivative suits, etc. Again, here, once we list the areas we need
to "fix" and are areas of  concern, it can be looked into whether public or
private national or international law structures and rules should apply.

My 2 cts worth,

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:23 AM
To: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight

Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not being able
to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't think that it's
something that governments will take much notice of.  
A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet governance
can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I think, be seen by
all players as a valuable contribution. That will also be a strong base from
which to make comments on governmental activities (e.g. USG oversight) or
proposals (e.g. GAC power).

Cheers

Danny

--
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net



On 13/10/2005, at 2:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>  From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far
> apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of  
> governments
> for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as
> necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a  
> system of
> checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in  
> Geneva.
>
> jeanette
>

_______________________________________________
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