[governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think you minimize the conditions, but essentially the proposal  
recognizes the fact that the US is in in control of this process.  I  
think you minimize the role the forum and the rest of the community  
can have in terms of pressuring the council and the gov't to complete  
their business in reasonable time and according to the requirements  
we are trying to put forward. especially if the WSIS report endorses  
the proposal - though that is not likely.

As mild as you think this is, even this proposal gets a negative  
endorsement from the US.   and ICANN's point of view is unprintable.  
To pretend that there is any other possibility is a pipe dream.

a.


On 28 sep 2005, at 15.28, Milton Mueller wrote:

> For all practical purposes, Avri's position amounts to this: status  
> quo
> plus forum.
>
> That is, the US government would decide (unilaterally) when and under
> what conditions to fully privatize (give to ICANN) the root; ICANN and
> USG would settle on some review mechanism which, based on past
> performance, is likely to be perfunctory. As Stephane B. said,  
> let's be
> factual about this.
>
> Describing the option in this way is not necessarily a criticism -
> compared to other models, this option may be better  - but it is an
> attempt to be perfectly honest and clear about what is being  
> proposed. I
> also seriously doubt that there is consensus on this within CS, not to
> mention among governments. But as a default for CS it is not all bad,
> given governments' propensity to exclude.
>
>
>>>> Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com> 09/28/05 5:44 AM >>>
>>>>
> Hi
> I think that we can have language that requires futher discussion re
> development of some of the more detailed points.I don't think that we
> need to thrash everything out in detail right now in a rush, once the
> concepts of MSF, reformed ICANN and independent review are agreed to
> and accepted.
>
> I agree that ICANN would need some sort of independent review body as
> a "last resort". I do not think it should be the Forum. I agree with
> Avri that this independent review would be already constituted before
> it is needed, and simply "turn on" to respond to requests for review
> on particular decisions. This could include the choosing of the panel
> members in advance.
>
> I also doubt that a framework convention is the way to go.
>
> Jacqueline
> On 9/27/05, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Morris
> www.carnivalondenet.com
> T&T Music and videos online
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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