[governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[Avri Doria]

On 27 sep 2005, at 23.43, Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 09/27/05 5:30 PM >>>
>>>>
>> I am afraid we are at an impasse.  I cannot accept the
>> notion of the  forum as an oversight body for ICANN.
>>
>
> I didn't propose that MSF be an "oversight" body. I merely pointed out
> that someone (not ICANN) has to decide when ICANN meets the conditions
> you specify to be granted the full control of the root. Obviously. And
> that is either the USG (which is the situation now) or....someone  
> else.
> It seems to me that MSF is the least objectionable option here, but I
> agree it is not a good one. The problem highlights the major problems
> with your proposal.

I believe that would put the MSF in the position of oversight.

the basis of asking the US to recommit to its previous commitments is  
that they should follow the rules of the MOU.  As for the rest the  
pressure has to come from within the ICANN and from without based on  
public opinion now that this has been forced to light.  Certainly the  
MSH, as part of the public gadfly, should follow the progress and  
should scream if the changes are not made or are not adequate, but,  
the forum should be no be put in a juridical position.

>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Whenever there is a big and important dispute, the worst thing you can
> possibly do is construct the dispute resolution mechanism, rules and
> decision makers ex post.

That is not the point.  According to point 4 the mechanism should  
already be developed, it should only be instantiated when needed.


> That is just so fundamental to institutional
> design it hardly bears repeating. The burden of doing this will be so
> great that almost no review of ICANN Decisions will ever be possible,
> because accepting a dispute would plunge everyone involved into so  
> much
> work and uncertainty that they will do anything to avoid it.

The only work that should be required is chosing the pannel according  
to the process that has already been defined.

>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Huh? CS and PS can have a voice if govts agree to give them one. Which
> is right where we are now, eh? How is it that you trust governments to
> give you a voice in WSIS but not in a framework convention? In both
> cases, governments have the same formal powers. In both cases, if  
> CS is
> to be included it will be becaiuse governments agree to give them that
> role. Reliance on a FC per se doesn't change anything.

I do not trust governments in general to give us anything we do not  
fight to get, though i do trust some to be on our side.  FC's are  
normally seen as treaty negotiating bodies, and while i may feel that  
CS, once it is better organized deserves a voice in such matters, I  
also believe the time has not yet come when we can get that.  At this  
point an FC would be a form of national oversight with CS at best in  
a minor advisory role.

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