[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

[Carlos Afonso]

Ian and all,

The scenario is uncertain here so far. Ideally, in my view, the process 
should be something like:

- Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum (with as many 
additional functions as it is possible to negotiate -- and these might 
happen in steps after the forum is created), and on the forms of funding 
this forum to ensure pluralist participation from all regions and sectors.

- Immediate establishment of the process towards and international 
Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight functions 
and mechanisms needed (I know this activates canonical responses like 
"it will take forever" and so on -- well, let us all help this not to 
take typically long, what else?).

- The USA gets convinced that ICANN must become a true global body, host 
country agrement and all; this agreement means a total autonomy contract 
between ICANN and the USA similar to any country agreement with hosted 
international organizations (UN or not).

In this way, the first (and currently most disputed) component of the 
future oversight mechanism would be established in a very short term -- 
a new, truly global ICANN. I still hope there might be some light in the 
US minds (I mean, there is intelligent life there beyond the Republicans 
and conservative Democrats :)) to see that this would be a spectacular, 
leading move on their part, opening up the way for the international 
convention to embody all other components of Internet governance. Of 
course, CDT, ISOC and their "like-minded" group would follow suit :)

With the initial forum in place, it would become a leading advocate for 
speeding up this whole process. With the convention in place, in my 
admittedly optimistic view, the original forum would become part of a 
larger system combining oversight, advice, conflict resolution, 
standards setting and development, and coordination. All this hopefully 
in a decentralized form in which existing organizations could take over 
one or more of these functions for specific components, or just keep 
their functions (like ICANN) in a new institutional arrangement.

IMHO

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:

>I’m following this as closely as I can from a distance. And I suspect
>governments are in exactly the same position as CS was a few weeks a go,
>with little time to explore the details of a structure, but the need to
>draft something acceptable to all parties. The difference is that, at this
>stage, something as loose as the CS indicative position doesn’t go far
>enough.
>
>There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation
>will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs
>non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that
>there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the
>opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should
>enforce that.
>
>Usually before change occurs a “burning platform for change” needs to be
>understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is:
>
>“US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an
>international network. Period.” (apologies to Ambassador Gross)
>
>If that acknowledgement sticks, a mechanism is needed to come up with a
>structure acceptable to stakeholders. Maybe some recommendations to that
>effect would be useful. I think you may need to concentrate on a mechanism
>to evolve a structural recommendation post Prepcom. 
>
>The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy would be a
>“more power to GAC” one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root zone policy
>issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more acceptable than
>nothing happening or some ridiculous government top-heavy structure being
>established for this purpose?
>
>There’s some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It
>will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading.
>
>Ian
>
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



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