[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

Sat Sep 24 09:12:46 EDT 2005

I support Bill approach. 

We should try - independent from the governmental discussions next week - to formulate our own position. As  I said in an previous mai, this "CS IG Declaration" could have four chapters:
Chapter 1: Principles (multistakeholder, openess, trnasparecy, democratic , privacy, freedom of expression, all agreed langauge and reference to the working definition)
Chapter 2: Forum Function (here we have done siome work, not yet full agreement, but the workshop last Wednesday produced key elements, 
Chapter 3: oversight: Most critical point. My personal position is "full privatization" based on four "ifs" (mainly related to contractual arrangements of ICANN, internal procedures within ICANN, now precedures within GAC and new relationship between ICANN and  GAC).
Chapter 4. ohter issues.

The whole paper should be no longer than 4 pages. A drsaft could be further discussed beyond PrepCom3 and tablæed as an official CS declaration in Tunis. 

If no consenmsus among us is possible, lets go Bills way and loog for sgnatories.

Attached is an recent article I wrote for Bill´s book. Critivcal comments are welcome. 

best

wolfgang

----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake
Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 2:20 PM
To: Governance; jeanette at wz-berlin.de; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; mueller at syr.edu
Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

Adam, Jeanette, everyone,

While I recognize that everyone here in Geneva is getting frazzled and is
pretty preoccupied with the procedural fighting caused by Brazil and the
"like minded" developing countries wanting to lock CS and the private
sector out of the drafting groups, I do think we need to turn our
attention ASAP to the big ticket item on which, unlike the forum, the
caucus has not previously agreed a clear position: oversight.  Can't be
avoided.  Even if we were to decide, as has been suggested, that we will
not use any little SubCom speaking slots they deign to give us as an act
of protest, if possible it would still make sense to have a brief written
statement in response to the like minded proposals on oversight that
presumably will be unveiled next week.

In our response to the WGIG report, we said,

"The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the
inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find
certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG
recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting
point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects
of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and
provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention.

Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant
issue that needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the
establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the
Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all
stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our
willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards
evolution and acceptance of an effective and transparent global public
policy and oversight processes."

The first paragraph is not a terrifically sharp position as is, and what
will be proposed may well be a new model in some respects, rather than one
of the WGIG models. In this case, we could not just recycle the above and
expect that to suffice, and anyway there'd be a need to go into greater
detail than "we do/don't like it." The second paragraph is now irrelevant
in the near-term, since we are not to be allowed to participate in the
development of any oversight options.

Small problem:  based on all the discussions here on the list over the
past three years, the discussions on the ground in WSIS and WGIG, and just
knowing people's personal views, I am profoundly skeptical that we can
reach any consensus on precisely how a) zone file edits and b) ICANN
oversight might be better organized.  While we haved generally agreed that
everything should be multistakeholder with CS participation, beyond that,
the discussion hits a wall.  Many of us simply have divergent views on the
role of government, singularly or collectively.  Moreover, there's no way
to know when proposals will be tabled, but if we intend to react to them,
we'd need to respond quickly, while including people not in Geneva.

So I think we are in a real bind here.  To have any ability to react, we'd
need a) some text for people to respond to, like yesterday, and b) some
way of working toward agreement on it or its revision, very quickly.  And
with regard to the latter, I suspect we wouldn't get there with everyone
on board.

Another option, were we to have text, or texts, would be to do what Milton
did with respect to his .xxx statement.  Rather than trying to have a
unified caucus position, we could do a sign-on (or sign ons, if we want to
advance alternatives).  This would have the real virtue of avoiding the
whole who speaks for whom dynamic, it'd be clear and uncontestable in
whose name any statement(s) would be issued.  Of course, we'd need for
someone to put up the web page for sign ons etc....

Thoughts?

Bill

*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade
   and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
Morality is the best of all devices for leading
mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Drake1
Type: application/x-macbinary
Size: 117248 bytes
Desc: Drake1
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050924/ca0473f0/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance