[governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[Milton Mueller]

For all practical purposes, Avri's position amounts to this: status quo
plus forum. 

That is, the US government would decide (unilaterally) when and under
what conditions to fully privatize (give to ICANN) the root; ICANN and
USG would settle on some review mechanism which, based on past
performance, is likely to be perfunctory. As Stephane B. said, let's be
factual about this.

Describing the option in this way is not necessarily a criticism -
compared to other models, this option may be better  - but it is an
attempt to be perfectly honest and clear about what is being proposed. I
also seriously doubt that there is consensus on this within CS, not to
mention among governments. But as a default for CS it is not all bad,
given governments' propensity to exclude. 

>>> Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com> 09/28/05 5:44 AM >>>
Hi
I think that we can have language that requires futher discussion re 
development of some of the more detailed points.I don't think that we
need to thrash everything out in detail right now in a rush, once the
concepts of MSF, reformed ICANN and independent review are agreed to
and accepted.

I agree that ICANN would need some sort of independent review body as
a "last resort". I do not think it should be the Forum. I agree with
Avri that this independent review would be already constituted before 
it is needed, and simply "turn on" to respond to requests for review
on particular decisions. This could include the choosing of the panel
members in advance.

I also doubt that a framework convention is the way to go.

Jacqueline
On 9/27/05, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 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 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 
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com 
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
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