[governance] Fwd: Re: oversight stmt - explanation of MM edits

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Milton Mueller 09/28/05 11:55 AM >>>
>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 09/28/05 11:04 AM >>>
>i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world  
>where we can reach consensus on some text.  the original text is  
>already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text,  
>that might be a good thing.

I am happy with the addition of section 6. 

Section 4 is still not acceptable.  We have DIRECT EXPERIENCE with
ICANN-established review processes and there is conclusive, empirical
evidence that it won't work. Further, it boggles the mind that we permit
an ICANN-established review board to decide whether human rights, trade
rules, etc. are applicable to it. This is one of the few legitimate
beefs governments have about ICANN. International laws and agreements
should be binding. ICANN is not above the law! 

But there is a way around these disagreements. We simply reframe this
statement not as a proposed institutional design (which we are not ready
for), but as a list of basic guidelines. 

So instead of saying "ICANN Establishes an appeal process in the
following way..." we say "we recognize the need for an appeal process
that will provide recourse if ICANN abuses its procedures" 
And we say that "we recognize that ICANN decisions must be subordinate
to established international treaties and agreements," mentioning
especially human rights and other agreements we care about most. We
don't pretend to have solved the institutional design problems raised by
that need. It is indeed extremely arrogant for us to pretend that we do
know how those issues could be solved and that we are anywhere near
solving them. Any such design issues will have to be agreed through
govt-govt negotiations anyway, if they are to achieve 

Section 8 is incapable of reaching consensus. That should be obvious to
anyone who has observed interactions on this list and other IG-related
forums. I proposed to delete it. It basically asks those who question
ICANN's legitimacy and the legitimacy of US unilateral control to accede
to that control. I fully recognize that in practical terms, this may be
the way things end up happening. I also recognize that things could
happen in worse ways, and that this may be a third-best option. But I
see no need for us to express SUPPORT for that option. 

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