[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[McTim]

Parminder,


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> Deirdre
>
>
> Deirdre/ All
>
> Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, there
> is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress in steps ,
> whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and make social and
> political progress... Such a shared intention is key...
>
> I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of ICANN'
>
> 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
>
> 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root file.
>
> It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that US-NTIA
> should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role
>


Actually not true.  We have heard on this list that there are governments
who are comfortable with this role, but they will only speak of this in
private, but that is not who you need to convince.  I think there are a lot
of biz folk who are happy with the status quo of #2.



> ..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be exercised
> directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body to undertake this
> role (and just this role and nothing else) is needed.
>


Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth role
need to be filled".  In other words, can we trust IANA to do their job
according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at).


>
> A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) above
> is the best option. Some others think that every significant decision
> pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a second
> opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by a body different from the
> executive authority (ICANN Board).
>


These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia.  Changing the IP address
of a ccTLDs nameserver for example.   When it comes to deciding what can go
in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's
from Beijing, Durban).




> One way would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not
> necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by US-NTIA
> today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but all such
> decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an international
> oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post facto role, such an
> oversight board will exercise its role within clearly set our parameters
> and rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews
> root change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due
> process.
>

FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and redelegations, so
adding less important like changes to glue records should be
non-controversial.

>
> Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to shed
> its oversight role.
>

We can certainly ask.  but they take this responsibility very seriously, so
they may not accede to the request.



>  What should further be done can be discussed along the above three lines
> (others may add more options if any)
>
> Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is easy to
> assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of one
> country and that it should be subject to international jurisdiction. The
> issue then is; how to form such an international jurisdiction.
>


If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do point #1.  I don't think
we should try to do both.  Let's work on continued evolution, not
revolution.


>
> Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the
> principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject to US
> law and jurisdiction.
>

and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other nations where there
are offices.

Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one.  How would you address that?



> ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and jurisdiction.
>


Is it not already? Aren't we all?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/f33b9ca5/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