[governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity

[Milton L Mueller]

Thanks, Jeremy. Both IGF and ICANN are going to have mixed feelings but
I have no indication yet that either is adamantly opposed. 

Is your thesis published yet?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 6:09 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
> Oversight: A Historic Opportunity
> 
> Ha, brilliant!  Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to like this, but
> it is a fantastic idea.
> 
> If you don't mind a cut-n-paste, here is some text from my thesis on
> this topic (footnotes omitted):
> 
> > One of the shortcomings of these open fora was that the subject
> > organisations were not required to design them so as to support the
> > fulfilment of the paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that had prompted
> > the creation of open fora in the first place. Specifically, the IGF
> > is called upon to "[i]nterface with appropriate inter-governmental
> > organizations and other institutions on matters under their
> > purview," and to "assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of
> > WSIS principles in Internet governance processes." These form part
> > of the IGF's role of coordination, and in particular that of meta-
> > governance.
> >
> > The fulfilment of this mandate will require more than a one-way
> > channel of communication from the other organisation to the IGF, yet
> > because that organisation alone currently determines the content of
> > its open forum, and because there is no formal interface between its
> > session and those of the plenary body, there are no means by which
> > the IGF and the other organisation can engage in dialogue with the
> > object of fulfilling the above paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda.
> >
> > To address this, an open forum should be conducted not by a single
> > stakeholder seeking to defend its position in the Internet
> > governance regime, but by a multi-stakeholder panel similar to those
> > that organise workshops, and accredited in a similar manner. If no
> > such panel can be organised through the decentralised action of
> > stakeholders, it is appropriate that one be appointed, just as the
> > Advisory Group currently appoints panels of speakers for the plenary
> > sessions.
> ...
> > the only additional consideration worthy of mention is the
> > importance of the forum not being moderated by the chief executive
> > of the organisation under consideration, but by an independent
> > facilitatator who would ensure that the forum addressed the role,
> > structure and processes of the organisation in question with
> > reference to the WSIS process criteria, along with the content of
> > any relevant draft or final recommendations that the IGF had
> > considered in plenary session.
> 
> On 06/02/2008, at 7:42 AM, IGP Info wrote:
> 
> > The Internet Governance Project today responded to a U.S. Department
> > of Commerce proceeding seeking comment on the future of its
> > political oversight over ICANN. The proceeding is part of a mid-term
> > review of ICANN's 3-year Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the U.S.
> > Commerce Department NTIA.
> >
> > In a move that is likely to attract attention and debate we called
> > for ICANN and the U.N. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to forge an
> > agreement to institute a bi-annual review and public consultation
> > concerning ICANN's record and accountability.
> >
> >
> > "We look forward to replacing the JPA with new forms of oversight
> > rooted in the global Internet community," the comments state. "The
> > IGF is an appropriately neutral, nongovernmental platform for
> > discussion and the development of non-binding reports and
> > recommendations."  "Biennial review by the multi-stakeholder IGF
> > would serve as a kind of "soft oversight," an experimental approach
> > with more international legitimacy than any of the available
> > alternatives."
> >
> >
> > These ideas will be raised both at the U.S. Commerce Department
> > public meeting February 28 and at the public consultation of the IGF
> > in Geneva February 26.
> >
> >
> > Read IGP's comments here:
> >
> >
> > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IGP-JPA-08-comments.pdf
> >
> >
> > View the NTIA proceeding information here:
> >
> >
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html
> >
> > ========================= Subscription Information
> > =========================
> > Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web
> > interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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