>snip
Agreed, but I will note however that the question of phasing out NTIA's oversight of the
IANA is not necessarily the same question as determining structures for "broad based
Internet Governance"... much of that depends on what you expect the oversight role
to cover: simply IANA tasks (which are administrative/clerical in nature) or the entire
registry system, including oversight of policy development, etc.
>snip
I would certainly expect that the post-NTIA oversight role over IANA would be limited to the IANA tasks.
Creating a new oversight body over the “the entire registry system, including oversight of policy development, etc.” would be like creating an ICANN on top of ICANN. That can’t be the goal here.
Greg Shatan
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 5:37 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: comptoir at cafedu.com; 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
As I mentioned before, I think it is unrealistic to expect proposals concerning broad based Internet Governance structures to be pulled holus bolus out of a hat...
Michael -
Agreed, but I will note however that the question of phasing out NTIA's oversight of the
IANA is not necessarily the same question as determining structures for "broad based
Internet Governance"... much of that depends on what you expect the oversight role
to cover: simply IANA tasks (which are administrative/clerical in nature) or the entire
registry system, including oversight of policy development, etc.
I do think however, that realistic places to start are
1. an articulation of goals, norms, values to underlie whatever structures of governance are established e.g.
• Does the proposed mechanism have sufficient means to ensure accountability
• Does the proposed mechanism have sufficient means to ensure/enforce transparency
• Is the proposed mechanism inclusive of normative as well as identity based diversity
• Does the proposed mechanism have a foundation in generally accepted rights based norms and practices
• Does the proposed mechanism have a foundation in principles and practices supportive of the public interest and the public good
• Are there means in place to accommodate and enable conflict
2. an identification of risks, threats and procedures for an effective response to e.g.
• Are there means in place to identify and resist capture
• Are there means in place to identify and resist subversion
• Are there means to overcome resource imbalance as between participants restricting effective participation
• Are there means available to identify and resist inappropriate frame setting
• Are there means to overcome systematic exclusion
And of course these lists are not complete nor without controversy. In fact, a first order of business should be the review of these lists and the development of a process for articulating and validating these elements.
Your process above (and initial lists) seem like an excellent suggestion on how
to start this process (and hopefully will be considered by those on this list). I do
know know what process has been envisioned for development of IANA transition
plan (other than the materials accompanying the NTIA release) nor what aspects
of Netmundial discussion on Internet governance will touch on these topics...
A (preferably critical and independent) analysis of the MS experience with the IETF and ICANN processes would be a useful place to start but recognizing the highly significant differences between decisions made concerning largely technical issues and decisions made concerning largely policy/”political” issues.
Good question - I am not aware of any such studies with respect to IETF processes; I am
sure that folks on this list can suggest several critical analyses of ICANN's MS decisional
processes (simply because ICANN tends to get more attention than the IETF in general)
Thanks!
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone.
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140315/b6ec3840/attachment-0001.html>