[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[Jeanette Hofmann]

ok, we seem to have enough support for this new version to present it 
tomorrow as a consolidated version on behalf of the IG caucus. Will send
the latest version to the secretariat now.

je

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