[governance] Statement made in Plenary

[Avri Doria]

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.

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...

>> 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

>> 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?

>> 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.
do you think it should not become an international body?  under what  
circumstances.  i am pretty sure you would not argue that it should  
negotiate an inappropriate host country agreement.  or do you think  
that enahaced accountabilty is something that could reasonable be  
avoided in some cases?

this is one where i can see people possibly having a disagreement,  
but i would then wonder why they think it is ok for ICANN to remain a  
US corporation.  and why they think this does not create a liability  
in the long run.

>> ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be  
>> required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated  
>> through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human  
>> rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules.


when is it acceptable to violate public policy requirements for human  
rights privacy rights, gender agreements or trade rules, etc...?

>> Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall  
>> transfer the IANA function to ICANN.


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.

a.




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