[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[Vittorio Bertola]

If we still have time to edit this (but, given developments, we need to
give a statement by tomorrow morning at last), I am willing to support
this addition, but I would then also mention civil society and Internet
users, not just developing countries. In the end, we're the only advocates
for civil society, while developing country governments are already very
vocal about participation from the South.

In general, I think I can live with almost whatever version of the
statement and with the last one in particular, the important thing is that
we make our points.
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...

On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 19:26, klohento at panos-ao.org disse:
> Dear all:
>
> It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the
> statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have
> *enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance
> mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a
> small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read
> : please edit the English if needed.
>
> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on
> its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of the
> community
> of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical
> community,
> business associations, non profit organizations and non-business
> organizations; PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO DEVELOVING COUNTRIES
> PARTICIPATION.
>
> Ken Lohento
>
> karen banks a écrit :
>
>>thanks avri
>>
>>changes in []
>>
>>karen
>>-----
>>
>>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 inter-governmental oversight organization for
>>domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the
>>following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented [add:with]in a
>> reasonable
>>time frame:
>>
>>1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of
>>stewardship in relation to ICANN and the DNS root.
>>
>>2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on
>>its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of
>> the
>>community
>>of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical
>>community,
>>business associations, non profit organizations and non-business
>>organizations.
>>
>>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. There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S
>>decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review
>>commission invoked on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>>  Note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an inter-governmental
>>            oversight structure, and we don't see an independent review
>>           process as a path towards that direction.
>>
>>5. ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to
>>replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those
>>aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability
>>to the global Internet user community.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two
>> paras
>>- one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process -
>> also,
>>a long para and easier to read if broken up
>>
>>Governments,  individuals, and international organizations, including
>> NGOs,
>>would  have the right
>>and responsibility of bringing violations of these requirements
>>to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be
>> reached
>>using ICANN internal processes, should have the right to invoke a binding
>>appeals process.
>>
>>7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government
>>shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN.
>>
>>8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community
>>will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process.
>>It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and
>>comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>


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