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

[Parminder]

We fully support IGP's proposal for an IGF anchored soft oversight mechanism
for ICANN, as the IGP doc puts it, ' until such time as a formal
international regime is negotiated'. 

 

I will try to give some more substantive comments on the proposal in a
while. Meanwhile it may be of some significance in the context of this
proposal to note that para 71 of Tunis Agenda does mandate that

 

". The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual
performance reports."

 

And the reading of the doc makes it clear that ICANN is one of the primary
'relevant organizations' implied here. 

 

TA does not mention to whom should these performance reports be submitted.
But since IGF is the only IG related institutional structure that came out
of the WSIS, it isn't a far-shot to expect these reports be submitted to the
IGF. And there are pointer in para 72 that specifically lays out IGC's
mandate that make it possible to envisage the proposed soft oversight
mechanism as cohering in the IGF.

 

Para 72 (c) speaks about IGF's mandate to 'interface with appropriate
(IG).... institutions...' and para 72 (Bill Drake's favorite :)) mandates
IGF to 'promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet governance processes"

 

All these provisions read together makes IGP proposal as something quite
plausible. And when there are expectation of performance reports, one can
always throw in richer processes of assessment, report-backs etc.

 

However, the real problem is that TA and WSIS docs have been unilaterally
interpreted by some dominant sections - either they were/ are just so
over-cautious that they are politically paralyzed, or they are simply
partisan to the status quo which serves dominant forces/ sections - in a
manner that makes IGF tokenistic and almost entirely ineffective...

 

Problem is, civil society and IGC, in my view, hasn't done enough to counter
this. Many are just politically quite comfortable with an ineffective IGF. 

 

In this context Jeremy's observation ' Neither the IGF nor ICANN is going to
like this' is a bit amusing. I don't know 'what is the IGF' to know if IGF
wont like it. Is it its current governance system - the MAG etc. But one
would normally think that any organization would welcome another agency that
has power in an area which concerns its scope of work/ mandate to be
accountable to it....

 

And as described above there are indicators in the organization's mandate
for such an arrangement... 

 

So which is this IGF that wont like an ICANN accountable to it.... and why
?????



This is a set of probing questions. And if Jeremy's observation be true,
would it not signify a captured institution. I am not jumping to any
conclusions (as yet) but drawing implications from some elements of this
discussion, which probably will provoke more debate in this important area.

 

Parminder 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:58 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN
Oversight: A Historic Opportunity

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080206/fabb0cdc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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