[governance] Statement made in Plenary

[McTim]

Hi Avri,

On 10/2/05, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> On 1 okt 2005, at 23.48, McTim wrote:
>
> > Softening the MUSTs to SHOULDs will go a long way towards getting
> > me on board.
>
> I think getting more people on board is a good thing.  so I would
> like to understand your reasoning.
>
> first, there there are no MUSTs, only musts - it isn't an IETF stds
> doc.  but since you point to IETF word usaae of MUST vs. SHOULD, i
> would like to ask you to approach these questions in the same way an
> IETF WG would.  Specifically wherever a SHOULD is used, one needs
> able to identify the case in which it would be reasonable to do
> otherwise.

I read them as MUSTs as I am sure the ICANN/USG folk did.

>
> so looking at the requirements you want to make softer:
>
> >> ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation
> >> on its Board, and throughout its organizational structures of the
> >> community of Internet users, national governments, civil society,
> >> the technical community, business associations, non profit
> >> organizations and non-business organizations. Particular attention
> >> should be paid to developing country's participation.
> >
>
> in what case would it be reasonable for ICANN to not ensure full and
> equal multistakeholder participation etc...

In no general case (corner cases aside).  My objection is telling them
what to do instead of suggesting to them a possible way out.

>
> >> ICANN must ensure that it establishes clear, transparent rules and
> >> procedures commensurate with international norms and principles
> >> for fair administrative decision-making to provide for predictable
> >> policy outcomes.
>
> in what case would be reasonable for ICANN to not have clear and
> transparent rule etc...  and in what case would it be reasonable for
> them to violate international norms and principles for fairness and
> predictability

Same objection as above.  Also, I don`t understand exactly which
international norms and principles are referred to.  I assume it is a
general reference.

>
> >> There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S
> >> decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review
> >> commission invoked on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> hmmm.  we used a should here.  i guess the question for us is why is
> this only a should.  is there any case in which it is not reasonable
> for a process to be established that could be used on a case by case
> basis as required?

Well, Milton's objections apply here.  If we have our point 3, why do
we need this (point 4).  To apply to netkooks? Besides the Ombudsman,
there is the UDRP.  Are we asking for an additional layer?

>
> >> ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to
> >> replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain
> >> those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its
> >> accountability to the global Internet user community.
>
> a WILL is like a MUST.

ACK

> do you think it should not become an international body?

I think it is.

under what
> circumstances.  i am pretty sure you would not argue that it should
> negotiate an inappropriate host country agreement.

I would prefer none at all.  Would all the contracts ICANN has have to
be renegotiated under a new host country thingy?  Who is going to pay
for that?

or do you think
> that enahaced accountabilty is something that could reasonable be
> avoided in some cases?

I think it will be avoided in all cases if the Summit doesn't give
them smt they can live with.

I think our proposals or mebbe Canadians is best they can get from the
WSIS process.
snip

> i think i understand why we made this one a should instead of a
> must.  while it is reasonable for CSIG to tell an organization what
> it must do to improve its decent but not perfect record, telling the
> USG what to do is a bit cheeky.  or rather it is a larger windmill
> then any of us could take on in the WSIS process.

My point exactly.

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

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