[governance] "Oversight"

[parminder]

Hi Bill

Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis. A few comments inline.

On Saturday 09 June 2012 02:38 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:40 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't think it'd be possible to get consensus in the caucus on that, 
> as evidenced by the fact that you've been saying this for years 
> without getting a bite.  But that's not the end of the story.

What I was proposing now has two important new elements (1) oversight is 
treated in its narrow sense, and separated from from any framework that 
may seek to address larger global public policy issues (2) any treaty 
that establishes the internationalised status of ICANN at the same time 
recognises and formally legitimises the current ICANN/IETF/RIR model 
which thus blocks efforts at any significant encroachments on this 
model, something which we keep fearing, and quite justifiably so.

>
> To the best of my recollection, the caucus has on a number of 
> occasions going back to WSIS called for internationalizing oversight, 
> so that's nothing new.

Any operational model that got suggested? Other than goodwill 
declarations by the US, which are not enough. I read the model offered 
by Carlos Afonso and find it quite interesting and something that can be 
worked on.

>  We also encouraged, in PrepCom 3 September 2005, the USG to make a 
> unilateral declaration that it would not attempt to monkey with the 
> root zone file, e.g. in cases where the US is in conflict with some 
> country.

Useful but hardly enough. Other countries, and yes, it includes its 
people, want legal guarantees, not goodwill declarations. As you can see 
US with its insistence on kind of directly taking change of the security 
function around the root is increasing rather than decreasing its 
control. In the circumstances, it is rather hypocritical to expect other 
countries to reduce their corresponding concerns vis a vis the root.

>  As you might imagine, that would have been a difficult stance for the 
> representatives to run up the food chain in the Bush administration. 
>  It would be interesting to explore whether such a declaration could 
> be feasible if there's a second Obama administration, e.g. in the 
> context of an expanded Affirmation of Commitments with buy in beyond 
> the governments and other actors actively participating in ICANN.

As I said in an earlier email, I dont quite well 'understand'(not that I 
dont know of) Affirmation of Commitments. A genuine agreements should 
have reciprocal commitments and signature of all the involved parties. 
Unilateral commitments, and that is what the AoC model is, is not 
sufficient. I find it as a kind of new term, and a new politico-legal 
fiction, that is based on recognising trusteeship by one or two parties 
for the rest of the world. I dont find such arrangements democratic, and 
also unacceptable on various other counts. BTW, when you mention 
'buy-in' of other governments and other actors, what does such a 'buy 
in' mean? Just accepting and becoming a part of a carefully designed 
arrangement of, by and for the US?


>
> A problem arose back in WSIS as to the meaning of internationalization 
> (or as many said, globalization, as the former can be read as between 
> governments).  And it's still here today.  There's a chunk of the 
> caucus that sees the preferred globalization as a truly independent 
> ICANN, perhaps vested with IANA function,

By all evidence the US has been tightening rather than loosening its 
hold over the IANA function, and that you know is the real issue that 
bothers non US actors.

> perhaps with a host country agreement---if I'm not mistaken one ICANN 
> strategy review on this highlighted Switzerland and Belgium as the 
> most viable locations.  Personally, I think this would be politically 
> easier to push through the rest if the atoms stayed in the US, but 
> whatever.
>
> I also think, as per points Milton and David have made, that any 
> transition would have to evolutionary,

I see no real evolution towards internationalisation, but rather 
evidence of greater centralisation, on the crucial IANA function, and 
also with increased securitisation of the Internet.

> with a campaign of effective persuasion yielding serious buy in from a 
> US administration that'd have to be willing to go to the Congress and 
> all the heavy duty government agencies, private sector groups, and 
> noncommercial actors who'd be skittish about change and make the case 
> for why this should be done.  It would be a battle, and political 
> capital would have to be expended.  The administration would be 
> vilified on the political right and have to tough it out.  And of 
> course, if Obama loses, this becomes an even more distant possibility.

This practical question of why a 'bad actor' would do what we want it to 
do is rather more general.... why would a china or russia change their 
international positions that serve the existing regimes, why would ITU 
not want more power.... Beyond a point this doesnt effect our, as in 
CS's, ethical positions, and the directions in which it seeks change.

>
> The model you propose is obviously starkly different.  Rather than 
> making ICANN fully independent and responsible to the global community 
> through a revamped and expanded AoC, you want a UN negotiation that 
> would yield an oversight treaty (among governments, presumably with 
> full SG input but not equality) in which ICANN accountability would 
> not be via an AoC but rather to some new body that in all likelihood 
> would be populated by government reps not actively involved in ICANN 
> affairs,

We can ensure that this is not so, in a manner perhaps similar to how 
global techical standards bodies dont get populated by gov reps, but by 
appropriately informed people..... and as i said, we can keep an 
appropriate model of national/ regional selections that does involve a 
larger local constituency then just an ad hoc gov appointment.... we can 
put general directions that i am sure most countries will largely 
observe. This does strain the westphalian model but that is the idea.

> and with SGs in some sort of undefined role (I remain unconvinced any 
> treaty-based system is going to treat SGs as peers with equal input, 
> which is problematic to many).

I am always happy to hear what kind of 'equal treatment' model do you 
really want. And what model of stakeholder rep selection, the two issues 
being related. (and whether such a model for just oversight function 
also extends to general Carlos suggested one for the international 
level, and also CGI.Br is a model to look at. So, do we have a model to 
propose. Lets not think of whether govs will agree or not. Lets place 
the model on the table and say this is what we are ready to go with. It 
is important to put forward the oversight model that is ethical and our 
best option to be relevant to the global discussions. Discussions and 
negotiations start from there. Not to do so is to legitimise the status 
quo.

>  And this implies not an evolutionary process where actors in the US 
> come to a new understanding that the USG link can be severed without 
> risking anything to security stability etc,

There is limit to which the international community can be asked to 
closely follow and cater to understanding and preference of various 
actors in the US. No, civil society needs to speak against such an 
arrangement. Lets have the guts to say that. I prefer to follow 
political systems that I have participation in. Will we offer a similar 
analysis of why things are as they are in China - after all there too 
there are a variety of interests, and also some very legitimate ones... 
and there too people speak of evolutionary changes..... do we have 
sympathy with such positions, or do we say, no, this is wrong and wont 
work, and we are against it. We need to speak up in the same manner 
about what is wrong with US's stance.


> but rather a sort of confrontational NEIO-style negotiation in which 
> the international community rises up en masse and tells the US it must 
> let go, now.

same analysis can be made about China's and Russia's international 
stances.. why dont we get more 'understanding'. Why dont we get a little 
less 'confrontational' about there stances, and well, also about ITU.... 
why such differential treatment.

> I don't see that working a) within the US, where everyone's back would 
> get up a la WCIT, or b) in the international coalitions that would 
> have to shape said treaty, because there's no evidence that 
> the international community is en masse as unhappy as you are.

Many many more are very unhappy then you seem to realise. Most of the 
global IG civil society space has been somewhat curiously constructed 
within structural forms and constraints that seem to blind it to this 
very wide spread unhappiness.

(more comments below)

> David gave away the dirty little secret the other day,
> snip

> I suspect many of us have had such conversations.  So I'm very hard 
> pressed to see OECD governments backing such a move,

On the contrary, I think non US OECD governments will immediately agree 
to an international oversight board/ body, of course with all the due 
safeguards which I have been talking about. .

> and the same may true for many developing and transitional countries 
> who either are reasonably satisfied that stuff works,

No, none is satisfied. Almost all countires given the option between the 
present system and an international oversight body, with due safeguards, 
will immediately go for the latter. I have not the slightest doubt about 
this.

> are tied into complex supportive relations with the US, or just don't 
> care all the much either way, etc.  I just don't see the scenario in 
> which you get a clear and remotely consensual mandate though a cosmic 
> UN battle in which governments' preferences follow a highly variable 
> geometry and most well organized SGs would be opposed.

If we look strictly and only at narrow oversight issue, agreement will 
be possible. That way no international agreement is easy. Do you think 
climate change negotiations are easy; but doesnt stop people to seek 
them, no.
>
> But the two paths need not be mutually exclusive.  It's not 
> inconceivable that over some years we move on the first approach and 
> see if it works.  It it manifestly fails to meet global public 
> interest criteria and satisfy enough governments and SGs, the question 
> of establishing a separate UN thing to fix something that is indeed 
> broken could then get a much more serious hearing.

Neither do I see any reform happening, nor is the present arrangement 
acceptable at the level of democratic principle (and that is not 
changing). For countries worried about security aspects (as US itself 
is) what is sought to be prepared for is the 'worst case scenario'. (as 
we all do for our security, we dont make arrangements for security of 
our house based just on the empirical premise that no one may have ever 
earlier burgled our house).
>
> So my suggestion is to recognize that big changes in the architecture 
> of global governance cannot be arrived at quickly and through 
> confrontation, and that we should be in it for the long haul.

Even putting just and fair models on the table now is still a long haul 
struggle. Waiting may look like a stratus quoist position.

>  It's be a lot easier to push for revolution once reform has not 
> worked, if indeed it does not.
>
> And we should keep things in proportion and bear in mind that 99% of 
> the actors relying on the Internet and caring how these things are 
> done are probably unaware of the IGC.  Even if we could reach 
> consensus on that there should be rapid movement toward a new grand 
> design, the response elsewhere could be, "IGC who?"  I don't think 
> we're in a position to unilaterally change the world along lines that 
> lines that would be contentious, but we could weigh in and add weight 
> to calls elsewhere to get started on a more evolutionary path.

Well, a civil society body's legitimacy and often even recognition comes 
with moral and political justification of its positions and its 
willingness and ability to work for it. This is a choice that IGC has to 
make. And if it does make the right choice, perhaps there will be less 
'IGC who' questions. We are one of the premier civil society 
organisation must present the most moral and just models (this is done 
in other global gov spheres, it is only here that we have such an 
extra-ordinary comfort with the status quo), while also the relatively 
pragmatic immediate approaches towards it. That is our task, and if we 
are not doing that, we are not doing much of anything.. We are making 
ourselves even more irrelevant then we may at present be.

parminder
>
> I'm sure we don't agree, but that's how I see it anyway…
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120611/eef55026/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