[governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda?

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
>>
>> I think one thing we could agree on as a brief statement is that if EU
>> proposes its model during the OC, we could state that civil society, 
>> while
>> looking towards an ICANN free of the JPA, has concerns about the 
>> specific
>> model being proposed by EU. I think that reflects our thinking at this
>> stage. (Ian)
>
> Probably it's not too helpful to say we have concerns and leave it 
> there, people might want to know what they are.  Is it that with 
> respect to the intergovernmental dimension, it's unclear what weight 
> G12 pronouncements would carry, what their scope might encompass, or 
> how decisions would be arrived at?  That it's a plurilateral rather 
> than broadly multilateral system, and that the selection process could 
> become a political nightmare?  That the precise relationship to and 
> implications for GAC/ICANN are unclear?  That the role of 
> nongovernmental stakeholders, if any, is unclear?  That the process of 
> devising this proposal was opaque and non-inclusive? Other aspects...? 
> (Bill)

I agree that it is hardly of much consequence to just say that we have a 
lot of concerns. However, I also dont think the kind of concerns Bill 
lays out are enough to delve upon. These are mostly in the nature of 
getting clarifications of what Reding's proposal is really about, which 
of course is important. More important however is having some idea about 
our positions on at least some of the key aspects of her proposal, and 
communicating them.

I dont think any of us has anything against an independent International 
Tribunal adjudicating ICAN  related issues rather than Californian 
courts. I think that it is a great proposal. Anyone against it (in which 
case pl give reasons)? IGC sponsored  a workshop on 'Trans-national 
Internet' last year, where a number of such trans-national issues that 
need adjudication came up.. Now when there is a clear proposal by one of 
the strongest players in the field (Reding cannot be speaking without EU 
backing) why do we show such a lack of political will to support what 
obviously, or at least in my opinion, is the best solution in this area. 
Has anyone a better suggestion?

I think IGC can clearly support Reding's statement on two points - (1) A 
single government's control over the ICANN is untenable and (2) the idea 
of an independent International Tribunal to adjudicate ICANN and related 
issues of global IG.

That brings us to the more controversial G 12 proposal. We need to 
analyse our issues with it, which could probably give the basis of a 
common position. Even if not so, it is best to discuss and analyse our 
issues with this proposal, so we know where we stand and what is the 
best way to go forward on this.

The biggest problem from our viewpoint is - where does civil society 
come in. We should strongly raise that concern. But that is best done by 
suggesting what alternative model(s) we propose. In this context it is 
important to remember that WGIG models 1 and 3 do have civil society 
participation as advisors or observers. However, if we want them to be 
present in  a more substantial capacity, we need to indicate what would 
that be. And how can they be selected etc. We are at least clear that 
the present proposal is worse than the WGIG models 1 and 3. (It gives 
credit to my theory that more time we spend in 'suspended animation' on 
the major issue of global IG institution more civil society will lose, 
but about this later.)

Carlton has raised the issue of G 12 excluding less powerful countries. 
This is not acceptable. It cant be like G 20  etc but more like UN 
bodies where members rotate on a regional basis with clear rules. I 
think that is what Reding means but we can ask for clarification. 
However, the issue is of such importance a larger body with more 
representation form across the world, in my opinion, will be better, if 
it does add to unwieldiness. We may have different views on this.

Another issue is - would the proposed body just keep its mandate very 
narrowly on ICANN oversight issues, or be able/ ready to consider other 
key global IG issues which may need urgent attention, which at present 
are 'solved', if at all,  in an ad hoc and non-democratic manner serving 
the interests of dominant actors. Again, the cited WGIG models do 
include the possibility of a wider ambit of issues. We all know that 
Internet being uniquely global brings forth some uniquely global 
governance issues that may not be amenable to the substantive focus and/ 
or the nature of processes of other global governance bodies. The 
enclosed contribution of Milton to the recent EU hearing provided a very 
good exposition of how ICANN oversight issues are intrinsically linked 
other Internet public policy issues and cannot be separated, an argument 
I have been repeatedly making on this list. This connectedness needs to 
be taken into account in proposing an ICANN oversight model.

And lastly, how does such a proposed global Internet oversight/ policy 
body relate to the IGF. On this more later, but to just say that this 
too is an important issue, especially from civil society point of view.

Parminder


____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EU-HLIG-Submission.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 59904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090507/05e42e85/attachment.doc>