[governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root

[Raul Echeberria]

Personally (and it should be clear that this is 
my personal view), I don't see that progress that you mention.
This is exactly what many of us were afraid since 
the beggining of the process, many years ago.

We knew that governmental oversight could evolve 
to a replication of the Security Council model, 
what is the most anachronistic governance model 
and clearly a not democratic one.

This would be a big step back for the mankind, 
because, from my view, the most important outcome 
of all this debate, has been exactly the new 
concepts related with governance models.

Raúl (just speakin on my own behalf)




At 03:06 a.m. 21/07/2006, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>Thanks Adam for the link.
>
>I would characterize the Burr-Cade proposal as a "small step  for
>mankind and a giant step for the US" to paraphrase Neil Armstrong.
>The main merit of the proposal is that it looks like something the USG
>might want to follow.
>
>Other posters suggested there should be no governmental oversight at all
>but that does not look realistic, in the sense that there can be huge
>economic and political interests behind ICANN decisions. Historically,
>governments have always been involved in foreign economic policy
>decisions (WTO) and would be blamed by their people if they did not.
>ICANN is yet another such process.
>
>Like it or not, there are sovereignty issues linked to ccTLDs. There is
>  no way one could exclude governments from the decision process.
>
>Regarding the composition of this oversight group, Adam already pointed
>out that the Asia Pacific should be reviewed. I would say that the
>European group should be reviewed, too. It would not be accepted by the
>EU that UK, itself a member of the EU, gets a seat on its own. I would
>rather expect two seats for the EU, one permanent and one rotating
>according to the EU presidency. The third seat should be for non-EU
>countries.
>
>The authors of the proposal show they have no clue regarding regional
>political weightings. Rather, they suggest American-friendly countries.
>It would be wiser to allow regional governmental councils (African
>Union, Organization of American States, etc) to designate their
>representatives.
>
>All in all, I would personally support this proposal as a starting point
>for discussions. It is incidentally close to a reply to a WSIS
>questionnaire last year, in which I suggested  that the oversight on the
>  root should be done by a sub-committee of the GAC.
>
>Patrick Vande Walle
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 18/07/2006


____________________________________________________________
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