[governance] oversight

[Milton Mueller]

Jeanette:
Your comments are good, but tell me how creating an independent appeals
body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized
oversight (using the minimalist conception of oversight I have
articulated). If the answer is, "this independent appeals body is
created by ICANN itself, at its own discretion" then I reject it
outright, for reasons I have made clear before. 

>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 10/12/05 9:30 AM >>>
>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.
>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.

jeanette

Milton Mueller wrote:
> Avri:
> We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the
> fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our
> minds. 
> 
> If you think oversight means a sitting Council of govts that can poke
> its fingers into ICANN whenever ICANN or other Internet actors do
> something the Council members don't like, then I agree with you that
we
> don't want it! 
> 
> But one can also think of "oversight" as a set of enforceable rules
> regulating ICANN. And for those rules to be truly enforceable, a
> significant number of the world's governments have to agree on them.
How
> else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN?

> 
> If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as
much
> as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be
reversed
> or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the
> following areas: x,y,z. 
> 
> I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules
must
> be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments.
In
> other words, the concept of "oversight" has to be conceived in a way
> that makes its purpose _the protection of the rights of the general
> population of Internet users and suppliers_, not simply a matter of
> giving governments their pound of flesh qua governments. 
> 
> While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN
> can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can
be
> indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated
> procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to
> traditional intergovernmental processes. And ICANN's "niceness" has
been
> greatly enhanced by the threat of WSIS, who knows what will happen
once
> that threat is gone and it is cut loose. So prima facie, there is a
need
> for ICANN "oversight." 
> 
> 
>>>>Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would  
> prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance.
> 
> I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is  
> better then one.'  One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass 
> 
> in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature  
> multistakeholder ICANN.  'all governments' would, to my mind, be a  
> permanent evil.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>>>Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no
>>>
>>
>>government
>>
>>
>>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes).
>>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't
> 
> that
> 
>>bad
>>
>>
>>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a
>>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views.
>>>
>>
>>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is
>>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on
>>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended,  
>>arbitrary
>>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse,
>>when multiple governments hold it.
>>
>>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and
>>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, 
> 
> 
>>then
>>of course it should be internationalized.
>>
>>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited,
>>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve
>>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some
>>governments are advocating.
>>
>>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all
>>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one
>>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular
> 
> country
> 
>>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference:
>>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and  
>>control,
>>
>>but all of them try to exert them.
>>
>>P.S. To Paul:
>>
>>
>>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United
>>>
>>
>>States,
>>
>>
>>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could
>>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to
>>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured.  perhaps if martial
>>>law were declared first, or something?
>>>
>>
>>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law,
>>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type
> 
> have
> 
>>to
>>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in
>>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is
> 
> configured
> 
>>to
>>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately
>>deriving
>>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to
> 
> a
> 
>>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root
> 
> zone
> 
>>that a DNS server must use to be legal.
>>
>>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different
>>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio  
>>transmitter
>>
>>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished.
>>-- 
>>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
>>bertola.eu.org]<-----
>>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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