[governance] Re: "Oversight"

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:33 AM, 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.

I was not insisting you mean anything, I was clearly referring to what some G77 & China governments have proposed.

> 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. 

I've always been for separation, so this is a line of interrogation we can dispense with.  
>> 
>>> 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. 

Ok, so I was involved in the months of intensive discussion and the writing of the report, but you will now correct me with your authoritative interpretation of what we discussed and wrote.  I've heard this is the era of the Death of the Author, but wow...

>>  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 ), the four models you speak of are not oversight models (that is the short-hand that gets used often),

That would be news to everyone involved.  

The shorthand was used by the government reps that wrote the three models proposing the creation of new UN entities, and by other WGIG members.  That's not surprising, since their writing flowed from an agreed framework distinguishing a "forum function," an "oversight function," and coordination functions pertaining to international and national mechanisms (which sort of drifted, although the former found its way into the IGF mandate).  We addressed the forum function with the IGF proposal.  We addressed the oversight function with the 4 models proposals.  That was the discussion, the intention, the reality.  

You reference the WGIG book I edited.  Have a look at Abdullah's chapter, "The Need for International Internet Oversight." What's it about? Model 1, the Global Internet Council.  Odd, if the GIC wasn't intended as oversight; maybe you could explain to him what he meant?  Moreover, he argues, "Global oversight is also needed to address the category of international public policy issues which relate to the use of the Internet, such as spam, network security, cybercrime, privacy, content control and capacity building in developing countries, which are outside the range of ICANN's mandate."  A bit beyond the NTIA roles, no?  Consider also the replies to questionnaire used to elicit views http://www.wgig.org/docs/IG-questionnaire-response.pdf.  An illustrative summary comment on p.6 is: "A number of responses indicate that oversight is broad and inclusive of any function as needed or relevant to the issue being discussed, e.g.: “(N)o function should be left out apriori.”"  Some of us had a different view, hence "Some responses emphasise that oversight functions need to be defined precisely and narrowly, and to be “minimal and non-intrusive”".  And so on.

Also, please note that the three relevant models---Global Internet Council, International Internet Council, and Global Internet Policy Council—all proposed to centralize responsibility for both oversight (in the NTIA sense) and global public policy in the same place, to be performed in an integrated manner.  So not surprisingly, the boundary lines between what counts as oversight and what counts as GPP have blurred in many minds.  That blurring is further advanced by using "Enhanced Cooperation" as shorthand for both.  
> 
> 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. 

Even if I were to agree with you there's this wide-spread understanding, the operative point remains that the 3 WGIG models centralize responsibility for both.  So did Iran's proposed Council for Global Public Policy and Oversight.  So did the IBSA proposal for a body that would, inter alia, "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting" (which, you must admit, also goes well beyond the NTIA functions) and do GPP including dispute settlement, development, etc.  So does the Indian CIRP proposal, that adds to this IBSA language functions like "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies."

> 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 :) . 

I've been along for over a decade!  It's the governments that aren't...

Turning to your other message,

On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, parminder wrote:

>> 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.)  
> 
> Lets then get this out of the way, although if you were unclear about certain terms in our joint CS statement if would be best if you asked us what we meant by them rather than 'unilaterally' - and we will have to occasion to comment on the meaning and implication of this term a little later - ascribing them very definitive meaning of your own. 

I quoted your document, that's unilateralism and a distortion?  Have you been hanging around with Newt Gingrich? :-)
> 
> You may notice that, first of all, we have separated the institutional model for CIR/tech oversight from that for larger Internet related public policies (aka the work OECDs CCICP does)

I do, but conversations indicate that not everyone who's read your statement does.  After the above bit about a new multilateral body that would do the oversight/NTIA function, it goes on to say (may I quote partially without being accused of gross distortions etc?) that "On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making…[we need] a new UN-based democratic mechanism."  Easy for the quick reader to think it's one not two bodies. But whatever.  

So to summarize:

1.  We are in agreement that oversight should refer to just the USG/NTIA functions.

2.  We are in agreement that, as per your recent statement, it is preferable that oversight and broader GPP be addressed in different institutional contexts rather than folded into one body, right?

A couple questions follow.  Let me try on my Parminder interrogator hat :-)

3.  Do you therefore agree that the G77 & China proposals of new UN bodies that would do both together are ill-considered?  Yes or no?  

4.  Do you therefore agree that the IBSA and Indian proposals of a body to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting" along with performing a wide array of GPP functions are similarly ill-considered, and that these may contribute to the lexical confusion?  Yes or no?  

If we agree on 1 & 2, I don't see how we could disagree on 3 & 4, but maybe I'm missing something.

Either way, let's build on the areas of agreement.  

Cheers,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120604/d3819d6a/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