[governance] "Oversight"

[Koven Ronald]

Dear All --


This statement by Parminder in his latest text -- "We will need to live with some levels of imperfections as long as the overall configuration does work well enough" -- could easily serve as the argument to bolster the "if ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.


Rony Koven



-----Original Message-----
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Sent: Fri, Jun 8, 2012 6:41 pm
Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight"


  

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 makingsome progress on this thread.
  
  
Snip

  

Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in thesystem, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UNprocess.
  
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 tableto talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such thatUSG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is somethingto 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 processthat is working, and no credible alternative on the table.
  
  

Lee, 

Your mediation is welcome, and I also hope we are making progress. Asper your suggestion, I agree that bringing a clear model to the tableis necessary for making progress. For the start I suggest somethinglike the following, and hope that IGC can be the one which comes upwith a clear model and puts it on the table, after we have discussedthe relative merits anddisadvantages of different approaches well enough over here. 

We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIRmanagement, whereby theoversight function is shifted from US gov to an international bodyconstituted under an international treaty limited to addressing thequestion of CIR oversight.

The same treaty acknowledges and guarantees the basicprinciples of ICANN model of CIR management (DNS plus IANA) and theIETF model of technical standards development (as well if necessary theRIR model etc). 

(Note: It is only by an express international agreement on these basicprinciples and models respectively of CIR managements and techstandards development that the danger, as expressed by many, of ITU orsome other body trying to replace the present decentralised and bottomupmodels by top down bureaucratic models,  can  be met effectively.Otherwise, with nothing really expressly agreed to and documented atthe global level, therewill always be a threat that one thing or the other can be slipped intoglobal treaties, UN documents etc, and thus into the legitimate mandateof somebodies, maybe ITU, as many have been fearing about the forthcomingDubai ITU meeting. An express agreement on basic principles of thesemodels will give us the much needed stability, and remove theatmosphere of fear and distrust that exists today.)

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

As I had proposed earlier, we can suggest some kind of innovativeregional/ country based selection process for oversight body members,who may have some connections/ acceptance etc of the governments butalso demonstrate clear and definitive support from a largerconstituency. (Details can beworked out.) (I know some countries may try to rig this system in theirinternal selections, but if the broad directions are laid out, a verybig majority will not. We will need to live with some levels ofimperfections as long as the overall configuration does work wellenough.) The total numbers of members should be manageable - less than15-20, I would think. They should have sufficient techno-socialstanding in their country/ region. 

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

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

parminder 






 
____________________________________________________________
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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120608/83352f34/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