[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi.. I took the liberty of changing the subject line, in response to
Bill's suggestion :)  Although it has been a lot of fun.. if a bit
northern hemispherish (I mean the food, not the people). 

One question I have about the GAC, does it not become very important to
have input from different stakeholders at country level in the
identification/nomination of GAC members? I hope this does not start
another debate on global vs. national governance...

Second question is about the submissions on the review panels. What is
the process likely to be?

Anriette


On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:29 +0200, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Milton,
> 
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
> > > You betcha.  A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not 
> > > a clean break make.
> > 
> > Having read the AoC agreement now, and the original bet, I
> > disagree. 
> > I think I win. Clean break. Ding dong, the JPA is dead, and
> > certainly "changed". 
> > Thanks to Adam for digging up the original bet. 
> > 
> 
> I thought it was a debate/bet on decoupling from US control, but guess
> you ultimately turned it into "change something related to the JPA."
>  Thus stated I obviously have to concede on your point, but it is less
> obvious that I have to concede on mine given the remaining contracts,
> larger political environment, "long-standing agreement" with the USG,
> et al.   Will be interesting to see the reactions within ITU and other
> places non-OECD governments roam. Either way, I suggest again that we
> split the bill (and change the subject line, getting tired).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > > rules could be tough on they key issues.  Someone care to spell
> > > out  
> > > the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the
> > > governance  
> > > of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental 
> > > step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving 
> > > safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business
> > > pretty 
> > > much continued on its merry way.  How different will this be, 
> > > in terms of outcomes?
> > 
> > Bill, you are saying that this is not a very good accountability
> > mechanism. Ding! On target. 
> 
> 
>  While I agree on the need for procedural rules and external
> accountability etc, I think I'm saying more than that.  
> 
> > But, as far as the JPA termination goes, the basic issue is that
> > (other than IANA contract) Commerce Dept oversight is finished,
> > over, it's now just one of several GAC members in the basic
> > supervision. 
> 
> 
> Never heard the phrase, first among equals?
> 
> > Also the Affirmation itself seems to have no legal authority or
> > binding power. And, the NTIA-ers got all the folks who might scream
> > about "giving the internet away to furriners" (VeriSign, CSIS,
> > Google) to agree to it in advance and put up favorable public
> > comments on their web site. Altogether, an impressive fig leaf to
> > cover the end of the JPA. Well done, tactically. 
> 
> 
> Ergo the safe harbor comparison.
> 
> > But no, let's not be fooled about this solving the accountability
> > problem. And let's pay careful attention to the enhanced role of GAC
> > and the possible abuse of its selection powers.
> > 
> 
> 
> And start saving info for NCUC's first submission to the review
> panels :-)
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
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