[governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi Bill,

My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there
is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see
constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're
right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders
at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which
will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and
responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all.

The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument:

1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to
which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a
multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal
footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more
like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I
can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly
distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions.

2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC
assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for
ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG
surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively
carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be
about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a
single government to a body representing the governments of the world.

To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have been
necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain maturity. Now
we have reached that time where we need to move forward with an affirmative
and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's where all the
ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a consensus or at
least an agreement.

Best,

Mawaki




On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense?
>
>
> I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as
> greater confidence and trust are built would be better.  This has been a
> subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130601/17c57c01/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