[governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous

[David Allen]

Those who focus on ICANN will probably appreciate the detail about possible change there.  But the comments do not acknowledge the core point:

There are and will be more than a few proposed models that look quite beyond ICANN.  Exactly because IGF is deliberative, rather than decision-making, there is opportunity to be creative and investigate what would be quality regimes in a politically realistic context.  Some of these will not look like ICANN ...

"[C]ommunication, coordination and cooperation among stakeholders which would enable involved parties with decision making capacities to make decisions based on knowledge ..." means an atmosphere for IGF that encourages out-of-the-box thinking, interesting analysis, and quality exchanges.  That means, among others, respect for and encouragement of a variety of proposals.  Certainly, it means no presupposition as to outcome (not, e.g., that IGF be 'ICANN´s watchdog').

Looking forward to a quality working environment, David

At 10:05 AM +0200 8/2/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>David
>
>I agree than the "way forward" is mainly dialogue and that is the IGF. But you should remember that the IGF has no decision making capacity. Hopefully it will become a mechanism which supports communication, coordination and cooperation among stakeholders which would enable involved parties with decision making capacities to make decisions based on knowledge and the received input from outside sources.
>
>The difference between IGF and ICANN is that ICANN has in some (minor but important) points a decision making capacity. The challenge for ICANN is to "improve" the process of decision making within ICANN and that means to improve the bottom up policy development processes and the interaction among the stakeholders, represented in the different SOs and ACs.
>
>There are some procedural points for the interaction among GAC and the Board but very vague and unclear. Lets wait and see what the joint committee will produce. But there is no procedure for the interaction among ALAC and the Board. What I proposed several times is to have a formalized procedure in the ICANN Bylaws (and probably a joint ALAC-Board Committee). I have encouraged Anette, the ALAC Chair to establish an ALAC Taks Force to review the ALAC articles in the ICANN Bylaws, The Task Force could develop some recommendations to the ICANN Board by Bylaw revisions (as the CNSO did). It will be interesting to see what the Board does with "advise" from its own "advisory committee".
>
>There is also a lot to do to improve the interaction among the SOs and between the SOs and the Board. It is unacceptable that the GNSO works for five years on Whois without any recommendation. CNSO, ASO/NRO have a long list of open issues, but there are chances to move foreward as long as you push the discussion and the dialogue forward. Insofar the IGF could become a source of inspiration for ICANN, it could become a pusher for ICANN or even better ICANN´s watchdog.
>
>Best wishes
>
>wolfgang
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu]
>Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 21:52
>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Betreff: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous
>
>
>
>At 9:13 PM +0200 8/1/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>>ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles ...
>
>It is a strong statement, to say that there is only one way forward.  Seems likely there will be a good bit more than just one model proposed.  Indeed, the good function of IGF can be to bring those out and to test and compare them, one with another, in dialog.  As Klaus Grewlich has encouraged.
>
>David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance