[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[William Drake]

Hi,

Comments in bracketed CAPS.

> Political Oversight
>
> 62b: We recognize that the time has come [TO BEGIN THE TRANSITION TO A
MORE INCLUSIVE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE LOGICAL INTERNET
INFRASTRUCTURE, CUT REST OF SENTENCE. ] for a change in the political
> oversight of the logical Internet infrastructure. We do not recommend
> the creation of a new inter-governmental oversight organization for
> domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the
> following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented
> [add:with]in a reasonable
> time frame:
>
> 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of
> stewardship in relation to ICANN and the DNS root.

[I'M NOT CLEAR HERE.  7 BELOW SAYS IANA GOES TO ICANN, BUT OTHERWISE THE
US ROLE VIS ICANN JUST ENDS AND THAT'S IT?  WHILE THEY ONLY ADMIT IT IN
PRIVATE, THIS IS FOR MANY GOVERNMENTS THE WORST SCENARIO.  THEY'D RATHER
HAVE THE US CONTINUE AS STEWARD THAN HAVE AN ICANN WITH NO STEWARD SUBJECT
ONLY TO ADVICE FROM GAC. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE COMING OUT FOR? JUST
CHECKING...]
>
> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on
> its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational
> structure[add:s,] of the
> community
> of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical
> community,
> business associations, non profit organizations and non-business
> organizations.
>
> 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.
>
> 4. There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S
> decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review
> commission invoked on a case-by-case basis.
>
>   Note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an inter-governmental
>             oversight structure, and we don't see an independent review
>            process as a path towards that direction.
>
> 5. ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to
> replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those
> aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability
> to the global Internet user community.
>
> 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement[add:,] must be
> required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through
> international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties,
> privacy rights, and trade rules.

[COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT CHERRY PICK POLICY
FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS MUCH
MORE.  MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY
WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE
PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY?  WHY NOT THE ITU'S
INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION?  EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM
REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER ALIA
TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATING
COE TREATY?  ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?]

> karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into
> two paras
> - one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals
> process - also,
> a long para and easier to read if broken up
>
> Governments,  individuals, and international organizations,
> including NGOs,
> would  have the right
> and responsibility of bringing violations of these requirements
> to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached
> using ICANN internal processes, should have the right to invoke a binding
> appeals process.
>
> 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government
> shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN.
>
> 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community
> will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process.
> It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and
> comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum.

[I WOULD PREFER WE NOT MENTION THE FORUM HERE. I DONT' SEE THE ADVANTAGE,
AND THERE ARE KEY GOVERNMENTS WHO WANT TO SEE A WALL BETWEEN THE TWO.  WHY
ENTANGLE THINKING ABOUT THE FORUM IN THINKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT AT THE
OUTSET? COULD SCREW UP THE FORUM DISCUSSION. THIS CAN COME LATER IF NEED
BE]

TWO CENTS,

BD

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