[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[Milton Mueller]

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