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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Parminder,

I would like to get clarification from your side about this part


>  This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over
> the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The
> membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, *
> i.e.* consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have
> appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process.
> For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each
> from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These memberscan perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant
> technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the
> countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the
> techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.)
>
>
in particular the meaning of "appropriate political backing" and what kind
of democratic process you are envisioning?

Best,

Rafik


>
> parminder
>
>
>
>   For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"...  how would one
> globalize the
>
>   'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the
> USG/NTIA?
>
>   See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over
> this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US
> jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/
> internationalise something ?
>
>
>  There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example,
> you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN,
> and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF.  I can easily imagine
> other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of bodies
> and mechanisms.
>
>  The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not
> propose any particular solution, but only states that several
> organizations
> which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the globalization
> of
> ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all
> stakeholders,
> including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal
> worth
> accelerating.
>
>  Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the
> question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated that
> the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine?   That certainly
> would have supported the status quo...
>
>  /John
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131009/9d734b35/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