[governance] Re: "Oversight"

[parminder]

On Sunday 03 June 2012 03:52 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>>
>> US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays 
>> vis a vis ICANN.
>
> Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited 
> and light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking 
> that's been variously described by some G77 & China governments.

I have repeatedly said that the US version of what is 'oversight' as you 
describe it, is what I mean by oversight. So can we proceed ahead with 
that, rather than you insisting that is not what I mean. We are trying 
to see here if we/ IGC can agree on some some basic issues of 'enhanced 
cooperation'. On the other hand, I dont think that most developing 
countries necessarily ascribe all the public policy work to the 
'oversight function' itself, although they may be interested in all the 
policy stuff apart from the oversight function. In addition, they may 
also, at this stage, have mostly only thought of the same body doing the 
two set of functions. I do agree that most proposals for an alternative 
to the status quo have not been nuanced enough on this count. Which is 
one reason ITfC is attempting a more nuanced institutional proposal with 
institutional mechanism for oversight function being rather distinct 
from any that may be discussed for larger Internet related public policies.

I have in my current proposal/ formulation specially sought separation 
of oversight from other (desirable or not) public policy issues/ 
functions. Are you against this separation? Why when I am ready to 
discuss the (narrow) oversight function as separated from other larger 
policy functions do you insist on conflating them. Do you want to see 
these two set of functions together? If not, we are both on the same 
page and can try to move ahead.

>
>> WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent 
>> to the role played by US Dept of Commerce.
>
> Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half 
> dozen government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is 
> accurate.

Sorry, I know you were on the WGIG but as I read the WGIG report (and 
also Tunis Agenda) I can clearly make out that it saw 'oversight' 
function in the narrow sense as I am speaking about rather than the 
broad sense that you insist it is meant in international talk.

>  If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the 
> NTIA functions.

If you look at the WGIG report (for those who may want to, it is here 
<http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html>), the four models you speak of 
are not oversight models (that is the short-hand that gets used often), 
they are, to quote the section heading, 'global public policy and 
oversight' models. And some sense of such separation is kept throughout 
in the section (though of course the two can perhaps never be entirely 
entirely unconnected). In all the three models that more specifically 
speak of 'oversight' along with some broader public policy functions, 
the separation is evident from below quotes I provide. The proposed new 
Global Internet Council (or a similar body) has a larger set of public 
policy functions, within which oversight is proposed as a narrow clear 
set of functions.

Quote from Model 1 of WGIG,

      (only one of the proposed 5 functions is ) providing the necessary
    oversight relating to Internet resource management, such as
    additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP
    addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.

Model 2 doesnt mention the term 'oversight' but the following quote, 
especially the phrase 'In addition' makes the sense of separation clear

    ....an International Internet Council (IIC) could fulfil the
    corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA
    competencies. ..... In addition, its functions might include
    international public policy issues relating to ......


Model 4 in fact actually recommends separate bodies for CIR oversight 
and for broader public policy functions, and so I dont think I need to 
go into quoting from it.

For the casual reader I should make it clear that at this point I am not 
advocating any of these WGIG models, I am only making the point that the 
these is sufficiently entreched and wide-spread understanding of 
'oversight' as a relatively clear and narrow set of functions, distinct 
from all kinds of other global Internet related public policy issues.

This gives us enough basis for us to proceed on thinking of these 
functions separately, that is if we indeed want to do so, in suggesting 
alternatives that better address the concerns and fears of different 
actors.

As I understand, Bill, one of your prime problems is that the two issues 
of oversight and wider Internet related public policy are normally 
thrown together, so when I am suggesting we proceed with thinking of 
them, and the needed institutional responses, separately, why not just 
come along :) .

parminder










>
> Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that 
> would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and
> *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, 
> management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and 
> redelegation of ccTLDs.
> * set policies on international public policy and coordination for 
> other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, 
> cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by 
> other existing intergovernmental organizations.
> *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on 
> Internet-related public policies.
> *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the 
> broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to 
> capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based 
> international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all.
> *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and 
> conduct arbitration, as required.
>
> Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council 
> (IIC) that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the 
> GAC, and engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined.
>
> Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council 
> with broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in 
> observer roles.  Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the 
> USG roles, It would exercise oversight of a new World Internet 
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the 
> United Nations.
>
> And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the 
> accompanying but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager 
> that wasn't released as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the 
> views in the group.
>
> In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS 
> discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially 
> beyond the scope of the NTIA/USG role.  And unquestionably, 
> substantially beyond just 'ensuring adherence to international law 
> established by a treaty.'  Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, 
> via intergovernmental negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in 
> some sort of observer/advisory role.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear.  NTIA/USG 
> exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate 
> (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, 
> and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the 
> ICANN board).  Those countries that have advocated international 
> oversight—BRICSA and some other upper income G77 and China 
> members—have consistently advocated another version that'd have a much 
> broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper either than what 
> NTIA does or what you're saying now.
>>
>>>  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)
>
> My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the 
> technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical 
> technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US 
> government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and 
> participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing 
> distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in 
> any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance 
> systems are certainly needed.)  So ok, you said multilateral rather 
> than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. And since 
> improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, 
> which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA 
> does.
>>
>>>  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.
>
> I'm having trouble squaring the two.  NTIA functions + broader global 
> policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly 
> broader than just ensuring adherence to international law...
>>
>>>  If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be 
>>> watered.
>>
>> That is really welcome.
>
> No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now...
>>
>>>  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.
>
> Do you mean this in some rhetorical way?  I'm sure you're familiar 
> with the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase 
> compliance with it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc
>
>> 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.
>
> While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the 
> commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say 
> "the community" to avoid annoying you ;-).  Imagine an ICANN in which 
> the NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater 
> minimalism--and if/when things are clearly be done properly and 
> jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully 
> independent, with a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." 
>  And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps including 
> actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN.  For example, it 
> swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in 
> times of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US 
> would do even now...).  And so on.
>>
>> (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.)
>
> I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option.
>
> My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on 
> nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional 
> options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating 
> intergovernmental agreements?  Why not focus first on what needs to be 
> done, and consider the range of possible forms that might help do it, 
> especially if some are less likely to meet immediate political 
> resistance?  Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and make 
> better use of the IGF?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120604/31a07bf0/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