[governance] oversight

[Avri Doria]

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