[governance] Upcoming OC meeting in Geneva May 13: IGC agenda?
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu May 7 03:15:12 EDT 2009
Thanks for the response Ian.
I am a bit occupied and will give more detailed comments a little later.
However I want to make it clear right away that no one is suggesting
that ICANN's remit be broadened. Not at all. We are talking about a
global Internet council like body which will do the oversight of ICANN
and the nature its remit. The two are very different issues. Pl see the
paper by Milton I enclosed in my last email to see how oversight of
ICANN is connected to all other public policy issues in the area of
Internet. Also pl see WGIG report for models 1 and 3 where such an ICANN
oversight body takes up other public policy issues, so it is not that
people do not generally understand that the linkage is important.
To state it in short, and using your terms, it is not about thick or
thin ICANN, it is about 'thick' or 'thin' ICANN oversight models, which
are two very different things.
> Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs some better structures.
Yes, for ICANN, names and numbers are enough. No one is proposing going
beyond that. The main problem is about what you call as 'the rest'
needing better structures (1) this 'rest' is the important issue and we
need to be talking about what could be 'better structures' now, and (2)
importantly, this 'rest' is connected to oversight of names and numbers
as Milton argues, which is the whole logic of oversight (if these other
public policy issues were not connected in some way to names and numbers
then no one will have any problems letting ICANN do what it does without
any oversight).
parminder
Ian Peter wrote:
> Well I have more problems with the model than you do Parminder. A few
> comments interspersed below.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/05/09 2:15 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 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..
>>
>
> Most of those issues from my memory were about cybercrime. I would not like
> to see cybercrime type issues mixed up with ICANN style administrative
> issues on domain management.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have a problem with this word related, because I have a problem with the
> mandate of ICANN being extended into related areas. I don't think ICANN is
> the model for cybercrime, and to be honest I would like to see its mandate
> smaller rather than larger. Names and numbers, that's enough, the rest needs
> some better structures. In ICANN this used to be the thick vs thin ICANN
> model debate - I am definitely on the side of thin.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I am happy for governmental input to be G12 or G20 or whatever they agree
> to. What concerns me more is the model that leans towards an industry body
> with a government regulator. We have lots of these in most countries. That
> to me would be a huge backward step for the transboundary issues, but I
> suspect it might be the way the model might evolve unless we look at why
> that's not appropriate in this space.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> As I said I favour the thin ICANN model. I think a lot more analysis of
> issues and appropriate governance structures for areas needs to be
> undertaken. Consumer input is particularly important here, there are a range
> of other civil society issues that need a vehicle for input as structures
> evolve.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I would think that if the "thick" G12 model was adopted and ICANN acquiesced
> to that IGF might close down. I think that would be very problematic because
> ICANN cannot and should not deal with a lot of the issues that need to be
> addressed.
>
>
>
>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090507/bb66e0c8/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list