[governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight

Wed Sep 28 04:01:58 EDT 2005

One of the key mistakes is to link the forum function with the oversight function. If a forum would get an "oversight function" it would be a political punchball from the first day and could not work. So keep the needed discussion for clarification seperate from the decision making and if you speak about decision making be as precise as possible. No carte blacnhe. Decisions only for very concrete cases. And it would be useful to define the criteria for such cases where a political decision is needed. 

Best

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline Morris
Gesendet: Di 27.09.2005 16:56
An: Milton Mueller
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight

Even though you've already read it... we can still develop the thinking.

I agree with Milton in general wrt his question/thinking through. But
I think that the language could include a "such to be determined in
subsequent negotiations" or something like that.
About the case-by-case review - hate it. I haven't seen self-appointed
case-by-case review work ever.  What might work is to have an
independent audit committee or somethign like, that determines itself
what it should look at  - or that can be appealed to by stakeholders.
I'd love a peer-level muoltistakeholder oversight, but I know that
won't happen.

I think that strengthening the GAC won't work, cause then the policy
and technical may start to get mixed up, and I think that they should
be separate.

I'd support ICANN being ICANN with some changes (per many of Jeanette
and Avri's points), but not dealing with public policy. A separate
venue for public policy, and ICANN could refer policy items to it for
a (non-binding) recommendation if they so desired.

Jacqueline

On 9/27/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >>> Milton Mueller 09/27/05 10:01 AM >>>
> Some comments:
> This is not an acceptable statement to me, although it is close and I
> won't be upset if you read it as IGC. Key questions that you have not
> thought through:
>
> Who decides when "full and equal multi-stakeholder participation"
> exists in ICANN?
>
> Who decides when ICANN has "clear, transparent rules and
> procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for
> fair
> administrative decision-making"?
>
> Case by case establishment of a review commission is a bad idea and
> won't work. ICANN's current "independent" review commission (appointed
> by ICANN) has been a complete failure. Who appoints this review
> commission?
>
> You can't just duck these issues.
>
> I will suggest some language changes in the next message, if it is not
> too late.
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>
> >>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>>
> Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text
>
> should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have
>
> a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or
>
> if we have to invent another stakeholder group.
> jeanette
>
>
> Political Oversight
>
> 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political
>
> oversight of the logical Internet infrastructure. We do not recommend
> the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and IP
> addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard
> to
> ICANN:
>
> 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of
>
> stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate
> host-country agreement for ICANN.
>
> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on
>
> its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community
>
> of Internet users, private sector and governments.
>
> 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form
>
> of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a
>
> case-by-case basis.
>
> 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government
> transfers the IANA function to ICANN.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

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

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