[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[William Drake]

Milton,

To repeat publicly what I just said in response to your private mail, I
understand your point, but think it's not responsive to the fundamental
problem on the table, greater accountability to governments with respect
to ICANN's core activities.  On the one hand, it may be that the majority
of us don't think there is a need for such accountability (this is not
entirely obvious to me), but if so then we should have a principled
statement as to why that is so, and why it would be a good thing to have a
completely untethered ICANN roaming the earth and doing whatever from
2006. In an international negotiation, it seems odd to dodge the core
question at stake.

On the other hand, saying that ICANN should abide by international
arrangements that are frequently a) operationally a few to many steps
removed and b) lousy, seems an odd substitute for a clear position on the
core item, especially when some of them---e.g. the ITU arrangements---are
potentially quite troublesome.  BTW, we had what I thought was a very
interesting conversation during today's parallel session on oversight, and
I believe someone said that there's already a provision in ICANN's bylaws
saying it has to abide by international law.  I don't have these imprinted
in my brain, and I'm tired, but if so the point would seem to be
technically irrelevant, and the issue is more tactical framing.

What can I say.  It's 11pm, we have to have language, and it sounds like
this has already gone in as a caucus position.  But I think there's some
big unanswered questions that make the language hard to embrace with
enthusiasm at this stage.  So you can count me like McTim, not endorsing
but not wanting to stop a majority, if there is one, that feels fine with
it from proceeding.

Best,

Bill




> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:14 PM
> To: karenb at gn.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.
>
>
> Right, Bill, my point is precisely that - we cannot "cherry pick"
> policy. What we are doing here is telling governments that they have to
> actually HAVE a policy before they can control any aspects of what ICANN
> does. That way, we limit the potential for abuse and arbitrariness.
>
> Otherwise, you get the arbitrary interventions accompanied by the
> declaration, "this is a public policy issue." and of course, ANYTHING
> important or controversial can be declared a "public policy issue." And
> further, in most cases, I believe that consensus international
> agreements provide some important protections regarding basic human
> rights. Most trade rules in their general formulations re: telecom
> policy are progressive, e.g., they would stop ICANN from discriminating
> on the basis of national origin when it controls entry into markets,
> they would favor competition over monopoly, etc.
>
> As for WIPO rules, sure, some of them are bad. But that battle has to
> be fought in WIPO and in national legislatures. It is unrealistic -
> indeed, an absurd fantasy - to think that if ICANN is exempted from
> international law that it will do what we want it to do and that
> suddenly, IPR interests will be weakened relative to us. I've been in
> ICANN longer than most if not all of you. I know better than that. WIPO
> would like to get ICANN to create new rights in names for international
> organizations and impose them through its control of the DNS, for
> example. Under my idea, it would have to get a new international treaty
> negotiated and ratified to do that. Which is harder?
>
> >>> karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org> 09/28/05 2:03 PM >>>
> hi
>
>  > 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.
>
> bill said: [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?]
>
> yes - this was my concern re mentiong the cybercrime treaty (and trade
>
> rules for that matter) - but i guess the point here is about ICANN
> internationlising and needing to be accountable - i would imagine the
> HR
> caucus would like very much to see something which ensures
> accountability
> to international HR frameworks.
>
> I am going to see rikke now and will ask her about this.. (she hasn't
> responded to this thread yet)
>
> karen
>
> _

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