[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

[Milton Mueller]

Ian Peter wrote:

>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. 

Absolutely not. I am sorry to be blunt but am in a hurry. Anyone who
thinks a GAC veto is a good option must not be very familiar with the
way ICANN operates and has obviously limited familiarity with the
operations of GAC. 

First, we must stop using the word "veto." That is an unthinking,
uncontrolled form of power that CS should not align itself with under
any circumstances. If you want to give GAC certain authority, you must
specify aspects of decisions making that it would have authority over,
and actual procedures for exercising it.
 
Second, recognize what GAC is now. It is not well organized, has no
established procedures, and giving it direct "veto" power over something
as important as the root is asking for trouble. 

Third, recognize that by being inside ICANN an empowered GAC has none
of the normal checks and balances of other intergovernmental
organizations - management of the root FORCES everyone to comply with a
policy, whereas in a normal intergovernmental treaty states that don't
agree are not bound. 

>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?

"Nothing happening" is actually a better option than a stronger GAC.
with a veto. A "ridiculous govt top-heavy structure" will not happen
anyway, the US and many others in the Internet community won't let it.
What you are proposing, Ian, is a "ridiculous top-heavy structgure"
within ICANN, which will have fewer checks and balances than an external
governmental oversight.

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