RES: [governance] "Oversight"

[Vanda UOL]

Totally agree with Alejandro that had the patience to explain quite
detailled all points. Tks Alex

-----Mensagem original-----
De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Dr. Alejandro
Pisanty Baruch
Enviada em: terça-feira, 12 de junho de 2012 16:50
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad
Assunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight"

+1

For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been counterfactual
in that it does not take into account that more and more processes of ICANN
have actually been moved a significant step away from "unilateral US
control", by being handed over to Review Teams which operate under the
Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the USG.

Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership and
the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been
finished, delivered, and acted upon. The Whois Review has just been
published. The At Large Review has been published and delivered, and being
processed. I chair the Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review
Team (SSR-RT) and we are finishing the final report this week.

In all cases a strong enactment of the multistakeholder principle has taken
place. As far as I can tell, a large majority of the active participants of
the Review Teams have taken very seriously not only their task in the
specific Review in which they take part, but also the need to demonstrate
convincingly that this scheme can work to the point that it can allay the
temptation for an overlay of oversight. These veritable audits, which have
to satisfy a very broad community, are far more significant now than the
contract compliance checklist under the MoU ever would have been. 

By the way, in the SSR-RT we had to look at the root-server operators and
the RSSAC in significant detail, and I can confirm (once again) the
impression of them that David Conrad and John Curran have patiently laid
out. 

So yes, there are a number of political fiction scenarios - not far from
pre-existing realities - in which things can go awry with the USG in the
governance of the DNS, IP address allocation policy, and Internet technical
protocol parameter registries, but no, absolutely no, there is no way that
the alternative is a new overlay of intergovernmental oversight. The
alternative lies in focused, heuristic, ethical, knowledgeable and committed
action by the Internet community and the emerging multistakeholder paradigm,
as has been proven over the years.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad
[drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 14:25
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight"

Michael,

On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I 
> have no competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate 
> seems to be between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone 
> and trust us (the
> USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works;

To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that
was your intent).  A better representation would be "These aren't the droids
you're looking for".  Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG
could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving
"oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my
view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in
attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN
actually does do.

Regards,
-drc







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