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

[John Curran]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Two short remarks:
>  
> 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN.

Agreed, the benefit has to be looked at from both directions...  I believe the
underlying concept is that ICANN, through the AoC, has offered to be externally
accountable to at least one government (USG), potentially to others (although 
I can't readily find a clean reference from ICANN of such an offer - hmm...)
 
Right now, governments (other than USG) have no direct commitment from 
ICANN on these principles, and it might be useful for them to have such,
either individually entered or collectively (e.g. the EU could be such a party)

> 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if that works...

The USG has several unique roles, and I'd recommend considering the one
by one to determine if they need to remain unique.  I do not believe that the
oversight role needs to remain unique, as noted above and in prior email.

If this oversight role were to be shared among several governments, then one
of the items that could become a topic of these reviews is the existence of the 
IANA Function contract vis-a-vis ICANN's commitment in "ensuring accountability, 
transparency and the interests of global Internet users."   I believe it is safe to 
say this is not as likely to arise if the only accountability to these principles is 
to the USG...

>  All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer.

Excellent discussion... thanks for sharing your thoughts!
/John

p.s. (Regarding the role of "being the party issuing the IANA Function Contract",
       I'm not sure that is actually a necessary role... see this earlier discussion 
       <http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2011-10/msg00250.html> on same)

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Contents may be flammable; keep away 
                    from the spark of action or the flame of open discussion... :-)








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