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

[parminder]

On Tuesday 28 May 2013 09:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> H,
>
> Just because I beleive it is the case, does not mean that it is the case.  And certainly does not mean there is any formal policy anywhere that states this.
>
> And even if it were the case, why would they want to create a policy statement on it.  If I were advising them, them I certainly would not recommend it.

Things are getting ever more astonishing! Or maybe I am missing 
something here. But this passes my understanding.

parminder
>
> So in case people want to know why I think it is the case:
>
> - who wouldn't they want to get rid of it?  In the daily crunch of important international issues this is just a burr.  why deal with all this animosity from other governments etc for something of such relative unimportance in the world of global diplomacy.  I mean I am an idiot savant who cares about this stuff passionately, but in general in the global scope of all the things about to blow up in this world, this is mighty small potatoes.
>
> - the Affirmation of Commitments is a big step as it essentially cuts the first third of the moorings.
>
> - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight mechanism.  And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am presumptuous enough  to beleive most people don't understand how really clever it is..   I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?)  I think once it is fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been demonstrated.
>
> - Even within US internal policy, DOC-NTIA is leading the way on creating multi-stakeholder processes for stakeholders to develop policy recommendations on issues within their area.  I really beleive that they are serious about this stuff.  and being serous about this stuff would mean wanting to eventually divest themselves of the sole oversight responsibilities.
>
> - As a citizen of the US, I think we would be nuts not to want to get rid of this pain in the neck, but I understand why the US has a continuing stewardship requirement and I support that.
>
> I would prefer to look at it from the perspective that, if you assume that they would really prefer to shuck this burr, then what needs to happen to make doing that a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I am not in favor of a letter like this at this time as a formal instrument that they would have to deal with formally.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 17:32, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote:
>>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon
>>>> hand the responsibilities over.  Just not to another governments or
>>>> to a intergovernmental institution.
>>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to
>>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their
>>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose
>>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from
>>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top
>>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the
>>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?,
>>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non
>>> action is simply another form of politics .
>>>
>>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work
>>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on
>>> enhanced cooperation.
>> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with
>> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in
>> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of
>> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> -- 
>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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