[governance] draft text on political oversight

[Jeanette Hofmann]

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I know things are moving very fast, we need to have texts, and people are
> working very hard to keep up and be prepared when we have speaking
> opportunities.  So it may be that you have already submitted this to the
> secretariat, in which case I'm too late.

We had to submit by two, CPSR's listserv needed a full hour to circulate
my statement.
> 
> I tried several days ago to say we need to start having a focused
> discussion on four oversight issues and to decide how to proceed if there
> was no agreement, but there was no response, everyone's too busy.  Now
> we're here.

This is not true, Bill. There were many replies to your message. Just 
have a look at the thread.

I can't imagine that the statement will cause problems. I didn't even 
introduce myself as coordinator of the IG caucus to avoid confusion on 
the status and origin of the statement.

Regarding your hiding plans. As far as I remember you organize a side 
event on political oversight tomorrow. I suppose some of us will see you 
there? :-)

jeanette
> 
> If you have not submitted this to the secretariat, I alas would suggest
> that you do not. It strikes me as a very non-consensual, essentially
> status quo position. There are clearly people in the caucus who would in
> fact want to see a new oversight mechanism that includes greater
> government involvement in a multistakeholder setting, although specific
> models that respond to what's on the table now have not been advanced (IGP
> had a paper a month or so ago, that's the only thing that comes to mind
> immediately).
> 
> The choice has now been framed---US on one side, developing countries on
> the other with their Council, and the EU seeking the middle ground, with
> GAC perhaps to be pulled out of ICANN and made an IGO or otherwise
> "evolved" into something where governments have more authority in relation
> to the ICANN board, and also taking on the IANA role.  Arguably, none of
> these choices are attractive unless there's a great deal more
> specification of the scope of authority etc.
> 
> As I said last night, I would have thought it safer to have a statement
> acknowledging that there are various problems at present but stating that
> the caucus, like the international community more generally, is divided on
> the best soution to these, with some favoring reform within the existing
> ICANN context, and others favoring a reconfiguration closer to the EU or
> developing country models.  I suspect everyone could have lived with that.
> 
> Hopefully this won't turn into a problem.

> 
> I'm sorry I can't be there to help, but Markus told me yesterday that
> UNICT has agreed to publish the WGIG book in time for Tunis if I can get
> the entire manuscript to them early next week. Wasn't expecting this. So
> from here I'm going to have to hide out and work and listen on the web. 
> Will see some of you at the WGIG dinner tomorrow and catch up.
> 
> Best of luck,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:31 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight
>>
>>
>>Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text
>>should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have
>>a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or
>>if we have to invent another stakeholder group.
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>>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 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 in relation to ICANN 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.
>>
>>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. 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