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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi all,

it seems obvious that from a civil society point of view, we would not 
be happy about replacing a unilateral oversight model by a multilateral 
equivalent. The questions that bothers me is
1. how a multi-stakeholder model could still have some teeth (non-state 
actors usually lack the authority for binding decisions)
2. how a multi-stakeholder model could still be independent of ICANN. I 
am sure ICANN would try to be part of the body supposed to oversee 
ICANN. Within a multi-stakeholder framework, I don't see on what grounds 
this could be prevented.

jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On May 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ginger,
>>
>> As discussed offlist, I'm not going to be able to make it this time, but
>> will try to participate remotely as best I can.
> 
> Sorry you can't make it Ian but glad to hear Ginger can.  Perhaps it 
> would be useful to know who's coming and whether we want to organize the 
> usual caucus lunch on Wednesday to coordinate.
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 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...?
> 
> Hopefully after the meeting in Brussels attendees can fill us in on any 
> clarifications and then we can see what if anything the caucus could 
> agree on?
>>
>>
>>
>> But I wouldn't bring it up unless it is raised by EU or others.
> 
> Agree
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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