[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Parminder]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Just to be clear, I do not like the concept or phrasing of external "oversight" because that implies just adding another layer of discretionary judgment and politics -- an organization that, GAC-like, sits on top of ICANN and second-guesses it. 
>
> By "external accountability" I and I think most of us in IGP are interested in subjecting ICANN to clear, binding legal rules that constrain ICANN and governments, and create actionable rights for harmed parties. 
>
> Do not put faith in a centralized oversight body that can whimsically overrule, dictate or change what ICANN does. That would just serve as a magnet for all the unhealthy politics that already converge on ICANN's Board. It is the legal framework that is the missing link. It is not policy direction that is missing, but lawful constraint.
>   
Milton

Any legal framework requires an institutional anchor/ system, that is 
all what is meant by accountability/ oversight mechanism. Should for 
instance Californian courts continue to adjudicate ICANN matters? Who 
makes and amends the rules/ legal framework you speak about? If we agree 
that some new mechanisms are needed here, we are agreeing enough for the 
present purpose.

parminder

>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:27 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>> Subject: Re: [governance] JPA - final draft for comments
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your efforts to get a common statement. As said earlier I
>>> think it is important for us to give our best in stitching one together.
>>> However, the present draft does not take into account the issues I
>>>       
>> raised in
>>     
>>> my email of Friday the 29th.
>>>
>>> In my email I present what in view are the two sides in this debate -
>>>       
>> and
>>     
>>> how can we possibly try a compromise between the two. The two sides are
>>>       
>> not
>>     
>>> just whether JPA should snap in September or it may not. The two sides
>>>       
>> are
>>     
>>> about ICANN being self-contained sovereign structure/ system or whether
>>>       
>> is
>>     
>>> structurally requires an external oversight/ accountability mechanism.
>>>       
>> This
>>     
>>> is the real division.
>>>       
>> and as such, has been skillfully avoided by the coordinator(s).
>>
>>     
>>> As I said in my quoted email
>>>
>>> "For many of us an external accountability/ oversight mechanism other
>>>       
>> than
>>     
>>> US gov-centred one is an absolute non-negotiable. "
>>>       
>> and for many others the notion of external accountability/ oversight
>> is an absolute non-negotiable, so we leave out the things we can't
>> agree on, no?
>>
>>     
>>> And therefore even if we state that JPA can lapse, "this should be
>>> accompanied by clear commitment by all parties to begin a process of due
>>> internationalization of oversight of ICANN
>>>       
>> Perhaps you filter my mails to dev/null, perhaps I am misremembering,
>> but I seem to recall sending a mail a long time ago with a breakdown
>> of geolocation of ICANN Board members.
>>
>> Instead of just repeating that analysis, I will just direct you here:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/maps/board.htm
>>
>> Where we see 7 current Board members/liasions from the USA, 6 from the
>> EU, 2 Ozzies, a Kiwi, 2 African folk, one Chilean and 2 of your
>> compatriots.
>>
>> If this isn't "internationalisation", I don't know what is?
>>
>> , and submit to the outcomes of
>>     
>>> the same."
>>>
>>> I understand that many IGC members, from APC, Milton, Jeannette, and I
>>>       
>> think
>>     
>>> also Bill, expressed views in line with above that there needs to be a
>>>       
>> clear
>>     
>>> outside accountability/ oversight mechanism. We cannot have  a caucus
>>> statement that does not take this into account.
>>>       
>> We can, in fact.  Anything you can imagine is possible.
>>
>>     
>>> In fact we do not at all accept what the draft statement calls as  'an
>>> independent ICANN'.
>>>       
>> Is this the "royal we"? ;-)
>>
>> (The discussions on the other thread highlights issues
>>     
>>> with industry led governance systems which is what US government sees as
>>> independent ICANN)
>>>       
>> yes, they apparently do see it this way.
>>
>> However, this, to me is a misnomer.  When they talk about "private
>> sector" led, they, to my mind include private non-profit
>> organisations, what we call CS orgs.
>>
>> In the USA, the term CS isn't bandied about so much, the more common
>> terms are "private non-profit" and "501(c)3".
>>
>> If we can get them to accept and use the term "multistakeholder", it
>> would be useful.
>>
>> <snip>
>> really, it's only polite to trim mails, seriously.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20090601/f53ddf50/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