[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles?

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, Milton,


> Let me begin by thanking those in Geneva for their incredibly hard and
> often quite talented work. I understand the need to improvise out there
> and to seize opportunities to influence the governmental negotiators. 
> 
> I do however feel concerned about the degree to which we are "flying
> blind" on the key issue of political oversight of ICANN. As Bill Drake
> pointed out a few days ago, Civil Society (and governments, too) really
> didn't do their homework on this issue. 

thank you for your nice words. Let me start by reminding us that we are 
not the only ones who are on a blind flight. The governments do very 
much the same thing. There are lots of governments or groups thereof who 
havn't formed an opinion yet on either the forum or the oversight function.

Although we agreed that
> unilateral US control was not desirable or viable, IGC never had a
> full-fledged discussion of the risks and benefits of altering current
> oversight arrangements. The WGIG report did not provide us with a well
> thought-out set of alternatives, instead producing sketchy "models" that
> raised more questions than they answered.

That might have to do with the matter at hand. My impression is that we 
(both civil society and governments) need lots of iterative turns to 
come to clear positions.
> 
> Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the
> fly, 

I'd like to respectfully disagree. Avri and I both follow these debates 
for a long time. We have both an idea of what the distinguished caucus 
members think about these issues, and we did try to be fair to both 
sides. When we started drafting this morning we still thought we would 
have time until tomorrow. Alas, it turned out we had to deliver already 
today. To not speak at all did not sound like a good option. So, we 
offered what we had.


which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical operating
> room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put
> the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it onto
> the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems to
> me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc.,
> etc. 

You make us look like complete dilettants, which we are not, Milton.
> 
> When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear that
> we should back off and recognize that the issue isn't ripe yet, and seek
> continued negotiations among governments, inclusive of civil society and
> private sector? Doesn't the idea of a lightweight framework convention
> seem like a better way to proceed?

There is basically nothing ripe yet. This is why we find this an 
interested process, don't we?
> 
> Our interventions on the Multistakeholder Forum have been much better,

Drafted by the same people, I am glad to say.

> but here again we seem to have forgotten the issue of accountability,
> democracy and legitimacy - how do people get onto this forum, how do we
> prevent it from being captured by a small group that can never be
> dislodged, etc. I would hope it is not too late for CS to articulate
> certain governance principles, such as rotating officers, some kind of
> democratic procedure for selecting people, etc. 

As I said, today's statements should get us going. They are just a 
beginning, a "food for though" to use UN language. We have now lots of 
time for more interventions. Provide us with detailed, consensual 
proposals and we present them.

jeanette
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance