[governance] oversight

Wed Oct 12 09:30:20 EDT 2005

While I agree that oversight can have various meanings, I still think 
that we disagree on the fabric of oversight. Some of us think that 
horizontal forms of control (including a reform of ICANN) are 
sufficient. Others believe that we need some vertical elements to ensure 
accountability, a regulatory framework reflecting the shadow of 
(governmental) hierarchy.

 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