[governance] Updated version of oversight stmt.

[Milton Mueller]

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/28/05 4:50 PM >>>
>I believe someone said that there's already a provision in ICANN's 
>bylaws saying it has to abide by international law.

Nope. Not correct. 
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm 
There is a provision that says that ICANN ccTLD policies cannot
conflict with the domestic law applicable to a ccTLD manager, and there
are several "except as otherwise provided...by law" references, which
means US law, but there is no reference to "international law" or
treaties. 

>the fundamental problem on the table, greater accountability 
>to governments with respect to ICANN's core activities.
>On the one hand, it may be that the majority
>of us don't think there is a need for such accountability 

The difference in perspective here is "accountability to whom?" ICANN
is already completely accountable to one government and the addition of
more governments per se does not get me excited, it just means
geopolitical conflict and less clarity about the conditions and criteria
of accountability. I want more accountability to the PUBLIC, especially
the Interet using and supplying public. Think of it as an extension of
the subsidiarity principle: we can interact with ICANN and its
structures directly. If the structure is more democratized, even more
so. 

>On the other hand, saying that ICANN should abide by international
>arrangements that are frequently a) operationally a few to many steps
>removed and b) lousy, seems an odd substitute for a clear position on
the
>core item, especially when some of them---e.g. the ITU
arrangements---are
>potentially quite troublesome.  BTW, we had what I thought was a very

I agree with you about a) and b) but....
Let me be clear. I am trying to solve the "public policy" problem.
Governments say they want control of public policy. What is "public
policy"? The WGIG report doesn't say. Governments don't or won't or
can't say. 

To me, THAT is the "core problem."  The claim that they have a right to
oversight is founded on their notion that they should be in control of
"public policy" matters. Alright then, tell me what public policy is. My
view leads to a situation in which to dictate public policy they either
have to a) point to a treaty or agreement or law that clearly applies to
the situation, or b) create a new one that does. To me, that seems like
a step forward.

It is not too relevant to this argument to say that some international
public policies are ones you don't agree with.  If you get undefined,
unrestricted "oversight" you are also going to get decisions you don't
agree with. Indeed, you are much more likely to get arbitrary and
unlimited interventions. 


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