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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote:
> <snip>
>
> 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?

'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be 
captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like it to 
mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open scrutiny 
by global constituencies - its various constitutive processes and so 
on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN is already globalised 
and requires no oversight. I cant agree. We need a body with however 
limited and circumscribed function to exercise core oversight function. 
Such division of executive authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role 
(as governing bodies of NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) 
is very necessary. No body can work appropriately without such 
separation of power and responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two 
great global importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do 
things as, more or less, it at present has.

Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA function, 
which is with the US government at present. This function cannot be 
exercised by an open participative process.

BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional processes 
that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never constitute actual 
oversight.  All this is well known and discussed in organisational and 
governance theories, and I would not go into deeper details. We all 
know, we get the 'third party' auditors that we want to get - and they 
can in any case only point to some very clearly illegal or extra-legal 
things - auditors are not there to cast political or even substantive 
governance judgements.

parminder

>
>> 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/d4baf4f3/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