[governance] oversight

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

It is important to define exactly what "oversight" means. It is a difference if we speak about "Internet Oversight", "ICANN 0versight" or the "Authorization Function for Publication of Zone Files in the Root". 

In the WGIG we more or less agreed that the majority of the "Internet Governance Issues" ar non-ICANN issues and need governmental involvement or even governmental leadership (Cybercrime) but we also agreed that while for each issue of the TOP 16 List we need probably a specific governance model, the basic governance principle should be multistakeholderism. The idea, to create "Civil Society" (and private sector) Advisory Committees" for issues like Spam, eCommerce or interconnection rates makes a lot of sense.

With regard to the ICANN issues- three of the top 16 list - I follow largely what Jeanette has said. If the GAC brings its house in order, if the GAC clarifies its status and procedures (including membership/any idea about Taiwan?) and re-arranges its relationship with the ICANN Board (partly inspired by the EU proposal), this could work, but it depends where the borderline between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operation" is and how ther procedures for the interaction among the Board and the GAC are defined in detail. 

With regard to the authorization function, there shoiuld be no governmental involvment, it should be full privatization with a normal external audit. The conditions here are a stable contractual relationship between ICANN, the TLD managers and the root server operators and a full and transparent multistakeholder procedure within ICANN, including a clear and workable review process which guarantess the stability and security of the DNS. 

Best

wolfgang



As I said in geneva severel times, my position is

full privatisation-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Thu 10/13/2005 9:20 AM
To: Danny Butt
Cc: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight
 
Danny Butt ha scritto:
> Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not  
> being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't  
> think that it's something that governments will take much notice of.  
> A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet  
> governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I  
> think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will  
> also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental  
> activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power).

Seeing my message, Avri's reply, and the following discussion, I think 
now we all agree to disagree on whether "one government (the US)" is 
better or worse than "all governments". So I too support Jeanette's 
idea, and I think we should (after pushing for "no governments") focus 
on proposals on how to make ICANN better, and how to make the forum a 
success.
-- 
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