[governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN Oversight: A Historic Opportunity
Meryem Marzouki
marzouki at ras.eu.org
Wed Feb 6 09:07:33 EST 2008
Hi Parminder and all,
I suggest that we forget, at least as for now, about the never-ending
discussion of acting inside/outside/beside/aside for anyone to
achieve anything anywhere. And, instead, that we concentrate on our
task as IGC, which is - inter alia - to prepare an IGC statement to
next IGF consultations this month.
One important part of such a statement should be, as a followup of
the IGC workshop organized in Rio, to suggest that next IGFs dedicate
sessions where para 71 of the TA would be implemented. This could
build on IGP proposal, but should have a wider objective. Obviously
ICANN is one of the primary 'relevant organizations' as you said, but
not the only one. ITU is of high importance too, most notably with
its 'Global Cybersecurity Agenda' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/
cybersecurity/gca/) and its related 'High-Level Experts
Group' (http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/). Who are
this experts, what are they doing? Why are their meetings closed,
contrarily to all other meetings directly or indirectly related to
post-wsis activities (see http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/
cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0?).
More generally speaking, we may discuss whether it makes sense to
continue with the current situation, where on the one hand the IGF is
discussing almost any issue, and on the other hand the WSIS actions
lines are supposed to address many of these issues. Should all these
activities be articulated, merged, confronted ? The minimum would be
to assess them and their outcomes.
There are indeed meetings organized yearly in May, during the
"information society day", but the attendance is nothing compared to
IGF. The 2007 meeting of action lines C1, C7 and C11 was attended by
56 participants (!), "26 representatives from Member States, 20
representatives from UN agencies, regional and international
organizations, 6 from the civil society and academia, and 4 from the
private sector, as we may read in the related report. For action
lines C2, C4 and C6, the 2007 meeting gathered 80 participants. The
most attended was probably action line C5 meeting, with.. some 120
participants.
So, where actually are things going on? Which things exactly? How are
they coordinated? Or is no one caring about this?
Best,
meryem
Le 6 févr. 08 à 12:02, Parminder a écrit :
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list