[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[Izumi AIZU]

I think we have made very good progress and since now
the governments are negotiating the very section we are
trying to point, let's put our statement at the next spaking
slot that is tomorrow morning at SubCom A.

And special thanks to all those who worked this hard question.

izumi


At 13:07 05/09/28 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>I can live with this.
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://www.digital-convergence.org
>http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 09/28/05 12:54 PM >>>
>I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my
>concerns.
>does this work?
>
>we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this
>statement to be
>included for consideration.
>
>almost last call folks.
>
>a.
>
>----
>
>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 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 and throughout its organizational structure 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 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.  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