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

[John Curran]

On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship
between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization
may have multiple "respective roles"...  I explore this question with
respect the "role of government" below.

>  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.

Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution.  In the Affirmation 
of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a particular
government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize periodic
reviews of its commitments.  Governments seeking similar commitments from
ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and participate in 
those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have I asked 
ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-)

I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a central body 
as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments
that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an AoC 
agreement.  If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held by
governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there
is some additional "body" involved in your solution.

The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; it does 
not address the role of governments in the policy development process.  It is quite 
possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but still one 
available to governments that wish more than just participating via the oversight
role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments.  For example, with respect to number 
resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and comment 
on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) development 
processes just as any other participant.   The "policy development" role is available
to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the policy formation 
process.

It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a third role, 
since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but (per the ICANN 
Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to 
concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction
between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where 
they may affect public policy issues."    This appears to be a liaison role, whereby
governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and policies
may intersect laws and agreements.  Telling ICANN that a policy has an interaction 
with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual participation
during the course of policy development and should not be lightly co-mingled.

In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but more likely
"what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to coordination
of critical Internet resources.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Not being a government, I do not intend to enter into 
                    an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the Internet I still
                    intend to hold them accountable to the principles therein (at least via
                    the court of public opinion...  ;-)





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