[governance] "Oversight"
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 00:45:07 EDT 2012
Alejandro,
I'm not sure whether the structure being in place for global governance
"over 'global' resources or actions" is a key factor here (and remember of
course that any parallels or conclusions that one could draw from parallels
would be only very approximate). Rather I think the significant parallel is
that the governance of the national resources (in OGP) are being done within
a framework which includes both national AND GLOBAL elements.
Thus in theory at least there is a transfer to the global sphere within a
jointly agreed upon normative framework (and to some sort of
co-determination with civil society) of management of national resources and
that I think is quite significant.
The key elements and why I think this is something of an advance on the
somewhat static positions being articulated here (status quo vs.(say)
multilateral (and/or multistakeholder) oversight) is that
1. it is possible to disaggregate the areas where these structures
are to prevail (for example, Net Neutrality, cybersecurity, censorship/free
speech and so on) which allows for the adaptation and evolution of these
structures to changing circumstances (and would also allow for the hiving
off from these structures of more or less "pure" technical areas)
2. it is norm based which to a degree takes the decision making
criteria out of the political sphere and makes it transparent to global CS
influence and audit
3. it gives CS a key co-determining role without reducing the
overall national and global accountability of national governments
Best,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:32 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'David Cake'
Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight"
Michael,
the point in comparing OGP and ICANN is first of all whether OGP has any
global governance over resources or actions, or it is an agreement in which
each signatory government commits to action only under its own authority.
The DNS is global; there is one root, one domain name for each gTLD string,
registrants are all over the world. The ICANN system builds an architecture
of agreements that apply all over.
I don't know that that happens under the OGP regime, and therefore the
parallelisms in governance between the two need to factor in that
difference.
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: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012 11:34
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; 'David
Cake'
Asunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight"
Alejandro,
If I understand you correctly the answer is that the decisions (or rather
OGP commitments) are made by national governments in some form of
consultation with civil society with respect to Open Government Data. These
are formal and public commitments generally involving some expenditure of
public resources (for the management of the government data for example).
While the commitments don't I think, have the force of law (i.e. are not
"binding") they do have the force of public relations and peer group
pressure in that they are publicly made at the national and global
partnership level and to national (and global) civil society--participation
by civil society in these processes is one of the terms of the accedance to
the global OGP.
Also, and quite importantly, these commitments are understood to have been
made in a context where there will be a form of public auditing by civil
society of adherence to these commitments at both the national and global
levels.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro
Pisanty Baruch
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:05 AM
To: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight"
...
To Mike Gurstein: I'll come back with some more detail about the parallels
and non-parallels to the Open Government Partnership. Could you help us in
one sense? have you explored what decisions are made by the OGP that impinge
on any given country's resources in a binding way, by obligations that are
binding to the government or to other stakeholders?
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: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au]
Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 23:00
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; David
Conrad
Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight"
Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the
process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical
of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a
good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC
representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the
RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other
community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the
voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position.
This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of
community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes
without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed
perspective as a result).
However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent
GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and
ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self-
oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional
silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN
in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a
valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any
weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control.
Regards
David
Sent from my iPad
On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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
>
> [Milton L Mueller]
>
> So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You
> invoke the GAC!
>
> So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make
> ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to
> make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that
> exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed
> of the exact same governments who comprise the UN.
>
> The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty,
> its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its
> members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected
> entity.
>
> Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the
> Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their
> mill, really.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list