[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

[John Curran]

On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:29 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not a plan for
doing such...  I do believe that we're all using the term globalization to mean
"free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance".

Thanks for that clarification. Now that we agree that we are all for globalisation of ICANN and IANA function, and are building consensus what we mean by such globalisation, and what we dont mean, it is a promising start.

Indeed.

Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a component of
the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity?

It is not a new UN body. It is standalone. And we propose novel non- or semi-political composition of it, or as we call it, a techno- political composition. I am cut pasting the entire relevant text below. Advice is welcome. As mentioned one can consider other ways of filling the membership - say, half the members can be from regional registries, and other from technical organisations from countries by rotation.... Many such possibilities exist - to globalise ICANN/IANA without exposing it to potential political harm.

Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open and transparent?
i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in this model actually
undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set of principles and
then have the results posted and discussed publicly?   Is there a need for only a
select community to participate in the oversight?

The following is the text with regard to the proposed 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start somewhere.
...

The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies.

The mission statement above is very interesting; it definitely encompasses much more
hands-on direction of ICANN than the present oversight model.

With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN.

Umm.. I would beg to differ - the current oversight does indeed focus on making sure that
ICANN fulfills its obligations, but that does not presently include the phrase "as per ... public
policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies."

An _oversight_ role should be about ICANN fulfilling its mission, yet you've effectively
set a charter for this Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board which indirectly
_changes_ ICANN's mission by making it subject to public policies "principles" of vague
and uncertain origin.

As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them.

Changing the oversight of ICANN is unrelated to some form of oversight over IETF; yet
this appears conflated (albeit in a non-binding role)...  this is both unnecessary and creates
significant risk.

It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies.

If there are truly international public policies laws, mandates or norms, the technical standards
bodies are quite capable of considering them in development efforts, and does not need any
intermediary.

For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN.

This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it.

Apparently, this Board is also accepting public policy _inputs_ (not adopted norms or mandates)
and will in some manner, use these in the oversight of ICANN?  This is not an _oversight_ role,
this appears to be direct supervision of ICANN's mission.  Was any consideration given of a true
oversight body/role?

/John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131009/71a55255/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