[governance] oversight stmt

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Actually I have two reasons:

The first and major one is I missed the comment until i was up  
against the deadline and had to submit.  And to answer the question  
of why the rush, this was the last chance to get a statement in that  
would be even noticed and, many of you were so displeased with the  
language we had on record.

Second is, I am not sure I agree with it.  While I may see reason for  
some sort of formal arrangement, a contract that makes them subject  
to some entity, may actually weaken something I see as a possibly a  
strength.  So it would have taken a whole lot of dialogue to  
convince, at least me, that this was a good thing.

In a sense what i tried to put in the text was nothing that would  
make someone want to balk.  So yes, it may be a minimal agreeable  
position (with a few abstentions), but it was the best I could pull  
off under these time constraints.  This does not mean that I don't  
see reason to further develop our position.  It is not like the  
dialogue will finish tomorrow or the day after.  As it is, I think we  
have the beginnings of what might a good middle way - between the  
model 1/3 fans and the 'no change ever ever' folks.

a.

On 28 sep 2005, at 19.47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> Why you did nit incorporate my proposal with regard to the need for  
> contractual arrangements between ICANN and ccTLD Registries and  
> Root Server Operators?
>
> w
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline  
> Morris
> Gesendet: Mi 28.09.2005 17:37
> An: Avri Doria
> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus
> Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight stmt
>
>
>
> Good with me as IG Caucus. Is this and IGC statement or opening up  
> for CS?
> JAM
>
> On 9/28/05, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement
>> on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to
>> swallow especially those who want an FC.
>>
>> i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world
>> where we can reach consensus on some text.  the original text is
>> already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text,
>> that might be a good thing.
>>
>> if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes
>> that others can then discuss.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder  
>> participation on
>> its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the  
>> community
>> of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, 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 process for extraordinary appeal of its
>> decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review
>> commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we
>> are not calling for an 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.
>>
>> 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required
>> to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through
>> international
>> treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties,  privacy rights,  
>> trade
>> rules, and cybercrime treaties.  Governement and International
>> organizations,
>> including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing
>> violations
>> of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory
>> resolution
>> cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the
>> right to
>> invoke the appeal process.
>>
>> 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government
>> transfers the IANA function to ICANN.
>>
>> 8. It is understood that achieving these
>> conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US
>> Government.  It
>> is expected that the International multistakeholder community will
>> take part
>> in the process thought participation in ICANN process.  It is also
>> expected
>> the the multistakeholder community will observe
>> and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Morris
> www.carnivalondenet.com
> T&T Music and videos online
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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