[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting

[William Drake]

Hi v,

> Actually, there are people (me included) who think that the mission of
> the forum should go beyond "dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring",
> and include starting up open working groups and drafting policy
> recommendations with a non-binding status, that could become "de facto
> binding" over time if the forum gained sufficient credibility and
> support to make so happen.

Then you should be happy, since this is exactly what the caucus response 
to the WGIG report  that was debated and collectively revised here says. 
It also says, as Jeanette pointed out, that in exceptional circumstances
where all parties agree, it might be sensible for the forum to have a
constitutional provision allowing for the development of hard agreements. 
If you've not seen it, this is the language that was agreed, with no
expressions of dissension:

"The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like
treaties or contracts.  However, in very exceptional circumstances when
the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could be a
mechanism that allows for their establishment.  Normally, the forum should
focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations,
guidelines, declarations, etc."

So I'm not clear---are you disagreeing with the statement's agreement with
your position?

I assume that Carlos is not opposed to the forum
*function*---multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and
development of soft law agreements, or to the suggestion that in special
circumstances where all agree harder agreements could be contemplated.  As
far as I can make out, the only issue here is that Carlos and Brazil don't
think that's enough; they want one body that would perform both the forum
function and the oversight function.  There are two issues with that.

First, there is zero consensus within the caucus in support of a
formulation in which governments would collectively have decision making
control over ICANN.  Accordingly, the caucus response to the WGIG reports
says (and I didn't write this):

"The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the
inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find
certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG
recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting
point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects
of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and
provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention."

Second, there is no prospect of international consensus on this point.  A
few of us had a long talk with NTIA people the other day and it's clear,
as has been noted here before, that the US (not just NTIA and State, but
the White House) and the business community are absolutely opposed.   A
number of other industrialized countries are of the same view.  The EC
would like to see agreement on Model 3, and seems to imagine that its
principles could be implemented in the form of an evolution of GAC into an
IGO with a substantively limited but defined authority relationship to
ICANN.  But EU member states are not in agreement on this, either.  And
it's not at all the Brazilian model, in any event.

It's also notable that Brazil is leading a "like minded group" on the
Forum that includes the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan,
China, South Africa and Malaysia.  One assumes this could result in a
joint push for an uber-body that does both forum and authoritative
oversight, since most of these governments---almost all of which went on
record yesterday that CS should be locked out of the drafting
groups----have supported some version of that previously.  Plays right
into the hands of those who are reluctant about the forum and opposed to
intergovernmental oversight.  Hopefully they don't reject both in tandem.

Best,

Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance