[governance] "Oversight"

[Norbert Bollow]

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >> in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role
> >> that US gov plays at the moment.
> >How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving
> >this role out of their hands?
>
> Maybe if there its ever a competent multistakeholder governance
> body, they will be convinced.

My question was primarily directed to Parminder, in reference to his
suggestion, but I agree that creating a credible multistakeholder
governance body is definitely necessary. I wouldn't expect it to be
sufficient.


John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to?
> 
>  1) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as the issuer of the IANA Functions contract?
> 
>  2) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as a signatory to the ICANN Affirmation of
>  Commitments?

I'm referring to all remaining USG uniteral "oversight" roles which
include both of the above, but also the following:

3) review of root zone changes before publication

4) power of defining the legal environment in which ICANN (including
the IANA function) operates, including the power to interpret the
rules and to enforce the interpretation

5) power of defining the legal environment in which the root zone
management function operates, including the power to interpret the
rules and to enforce the interpretation

> "Oversight role" could easily refer to #1 or #2, but there is nothing in
> theory that precludes another country from also signing an Affirmation of
> Commitments with ICANN and participating in the required reviews.  With
> respect to role #1, I've attached an earlier email to this list which
> outlines one potential evolutionary path towards that outcome.

Looks good to me. I think that this is a reasonable strategy that
could be pursued by an ECTF working group (where "ECTF" refers to
that "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" that I've been proposing).


Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> I proposed on this list in an earlier mail to discuss more in detail
> how the (decentralized) AoC Review process can be further
> improved. The multistakeholder AoC Review mechanism is - in my eyes
> - a de facto an ICANN oversight mechanism and it makes sense to look
> into the details how the process (in particular with the next round
> on A&T) can be further enhanced.

How and where can this be productively discussed? (Is the set of
members of this list really a suitable group of people for an
in-depth discussion of this topic?)


Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>On Saturday 09 June 2012 10:53 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> Hi Parminder
>> How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving
>> this role out of their hands?
> We can get some gleanings of the answer if we 
> think of the same question in other contexts - why would china and 
> russia change their international stances, or ITU reduce its efforts to 
> gain more power, just because CS wants it to?
In my view, these are just as unlikely to happen just because we might
demand such changes.

> Even a dictator needs and seeks some kind of legitimacy, which comes in 
> various forms.

Yes. Where no true legitimacy exists, it is supplied by propaganda.
History shows that even if nobody truly believes the propaganda, this
purely hypocritical, illusionary kind of legitimacy can sufficiently
meet the need of dictators for "some kind of legitimacy" for a very
log time.

> On the issue of status quo of US's unilateral control/oversight over
> CIRs, it is the, so called, technical community and by large also
> the 'global' IG related civil society that has provided the
> legitimacy to the present unfair, unjust and undemocratic model. If
> these constituencies and actors withdraw this legitimacy - by
> putting a more democratic model on the table

I would assert that the model that you have put on the table is not
sufficiently more fair, just and democratic, and that it is not
sufficiently clear that it is not worse in other respects such as
robustness against political influences that threaten technical
stability, that you can expect the technical and civil society
communities to rally behind your proposal.

I think that we need to go forward by taking smaller steps.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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