[governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation

[parminder]

On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having 
> so much fun, this really caught my eye.  From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP 
> proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with 
> authoritative policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body.

Hi Bill

You are welcome to partake of the fun.

Ok, on to substantive matters.

US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis 
a vis ICANN. WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the 
equivalent to the role played by US Dept of Commerce. Do you think this 
is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, yes, 
'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length  
role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to 
clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such 
instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight 
should impact the meaning of what oversight is.

>  In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke 
> of transferring oversight  from the USG to an intergovernmental body.

This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to 
divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later)

>  Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means 
> ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty?

Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent 
change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC.

>  If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered.

That is really welcome.

>  I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there 
> could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation 
> of Commitments on zone file authorizations...

I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please 
explain. Among whom would these AoCs  be made? Are these unilateral 
declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how 
that would do. But ready to discuss.

(Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of 
success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a 
treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the 
cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of 
all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. 
However we do make our positions about which way the world and its 
insitutions should go independent of such assessment. Our constitution 
writers wrote those lofty ideals and built institutional designs looking 
far ahead, didnt they.)

parminder

>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120602/050ae6e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t