[governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[carlos a. afonso]

In any global oversight mechanism ICANN would of course be overseen by
it. What is not clear is if the form this would take is of a global
oversight *forum*.

Some proposals which vie for oversight have contributed to the confusion
by combining all functions in a single broad mechanism (which is
sometimes called a forum and should probably be called a *council* or
something similar -- this is the case of the Brazilian proposal, for
example). The way this will be organized will depend on the process, and
in my view this will start with an advisory forum.

In this case, proposals attributing to this "initial" forum oversight
over ICANN or even over an ICANN transition to become global (as Milton
suggests) would not be viable, unless the forum receives this as a task
from a number of instances, one of which is, in the present
arrangements, nothing less than the US government -- which, in any case,
would have to be convinced to agree to the process of internationalizing
ICANN in the first place.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: Governance Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:30:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

> Hi,
> 
> I am afraid we are at an impasse.  I cannot accept the notion of the 
> forum as an oversight body for ICANN.
> 
> The idea of having an independent external review formed in  
> extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more  
> developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are  
> about as far as i could ever agree to.  the idea of something like  
> the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is
>  
> inconceivable to me.
> 
> i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately  
> writen.  i do not admit to their being too little thought put into  
> it.  but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full  
> complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us.
> 
> an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which  
> would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the  
> private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice
>  
> in negotiations at all.  personally, i think that would be a disaster
>  
> on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> > My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets]
> >
> >
> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>>
> >>>>
> > Political Oversight
> >
> > 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the
> political
> >
> > oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not
> > recommend
> > the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and
> IP
> > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with
> regard
> > to
> > ICANN:
> >
> > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent  
> > role of
> > ]
> > stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters
> > into
> > an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN.
> >
> > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation
> on
> >
> > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the
> community
> >
> > of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS
> > MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN
> > REACHED.
> >
> > 3. 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS
> > MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED.
> >
> > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY
> > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO
> TRADE
> > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC.
> GOVERNMENTS
> > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A
> DISPUTE
> > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF
> > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY.
> > [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the 
> > form
> >
> > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established 
> > on a
> >
> > case-by-case basis.]
> >
> > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government
> > transfers the IANA function to ICANN.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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