[governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am afraid we are at an impasse.  I cannot accept the notion of the  
forum as an oversight body for ICANN.

The idea of having an independent external review formed in  
extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more  
developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are  
about as far as i could ever agree to.  the idea of something like  
the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is  
inconceivable to me.

i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately  
writen.  i do not admit to their being too little thought put into  
it.  but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full  
complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us.

an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which  
would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the  
private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice  
in negotiations at all.  personally, i think that would be a disaster  
on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination.

a.

On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote:

> My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets]
>
>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>>
>>>>
> Political Oversight
>
> 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political
>
> oversight of ICANN [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 OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT 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. THE WSIS
> MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN
> REACHED.
>
> 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS
> MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED.
>
> 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY
> CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO TRADE
> RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. GOVERNMENTS
> AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A DISPUTE
> PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF
> ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY.
> [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
>
>

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