[governance] "Oversight"

[parminder]

On Friday 08 June 2012 12:31 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making 
> some progress on this thread.
>
Snip
>
> Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the 
> system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or 
> UN process.
>
> And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament 
> scenario, however one wishes to characterize it:
>
> WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table 
> to talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that 
> USG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something 
> to talk about.
>
> Until then, we are all just - bluffing - and the US/DOC/NTIA know 
> this, and won't engage since - there's nothing to talk about, given a 
> process that is working, and no credible alternative on the table.
>

Lee,

Your mediation is welcome, and I also hope we are making progress. As 
per your suggestion, I agree that bringing a clear model to the table is 
necessary for making progress. For the start I suggest something like 
the following, and hope that IGC can be the one which comes up with a 
clear model and puts it on the table, after we have discussed the 
relative merits and disadvantages of different approaches well enough 
over here.

We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR 
management, whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to an 
international body constituted under an international treaty limited to 
addressing the question of CIR oversight.

The same treaty acknowledges and guarantees the basic principles of 
ICANN model of CIR management (DNS plus IANA) and the IETF model of 
technical standards development (as well if necessary the RIR model etc).

(Note: It is only by an express international agreement on these basic 
principles and models respectively of CIR managements and tech standards 
development that the danger, as expressed by many, of ITU or some other 
body trying to replace the present decentralised and bottom up models by 
top down bureaucratic models,  can  be met effectively. Otherwise, with 
nothing really expressly agreed to and documented at the global level, 
there will always be a threat that one thing or the other can be slipped 
into global treaties, UN documents etc, and thus into the legitimate 
mandate of some bodies, maybe ITU, as many have been fearing about the 
forthcoming Dubai ITU meeting. An express agreement on basic principles 
of these models will give us the much needed stability, and remove the 
atmosphere of fear and distrust that exists today.)

The treaty should structure the oversight structure in manner that it is 
impossible to do ad hoc interferences with CIR management, and the due 
process of oversight with all the necessary safeguards should be clearly 
laid out. A sufficiently high majority of the members of such a body 
should have to agree to exercise any oversight function (whereby, to 
allay some people's fears one may state that,  it will be difficult to 
do anything without, say, members from North America and EU consenting). 
In default, ICANN's operational decisions can be considered 
automatically authorised. (This may need more thought, and I may be 
moving into slippery grounds here, but lets think out of the box and 
come up with possible ways to break the present logjam.)

As I had proposed earlier, we can suggest some kind of innovative 
regional/ country based selection process for oversight body members, 
who may have some connections/ acceptance etc of the governments but 
also demonstrate clear and definitive support from a larger 
constituency. (Details can be worked out.) (I know some countries may 
try to rig this system in their internal selections, but if the broad 
directions are laid out, a very big majority will not. We will need to 
live with some levels of imperfections as long as the overall 
configuration does work well enough.) The total numbers of members 
should be manageable - less than 15-20, I would think. They should have 
sufficient techno-social standing in their country/ region.

ICANN then gets re-constituted  as an international body under the 
mentioned international agreement, and enters into an appropriate host 
agreement with the US. .....

Something on these lines, but it is completely open for comments and 
discussion.

parminder





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120608/066cab5d/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