[chapter-delegates] WGIG summary of replies to the questionnaire

[Stefano Trumpy]

>[I posted this message to memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org and someone
>suggested I should repost it here]
>
>Dear all,
>
>I am trying to launch a debate here regarding the WGIG process. The goal is
>to have a common position of the ISOC chapters and to escalate it to ISOC
>and WGIG. My first thoughts after reading the WGIG summary:
>
>The first question was if there a need for an additional body. Actually,
>there might be a need for two bodies, one new and a reformed existing
>one. Internet Governance is a vast domain, ranging from IP address
>allocation issues to interconnection tariffs, freedom of expression,
>intellectual property issues, cybercrime... Only a small part of the
>above is currently managed by ICANN.
>
>One of these bodies should address the oversight function by taking over
>the role of the DoC in relation with ICANN, and especially the control
>on the root zone. The majority of the TLDs in the root zone file are
>*country* codes, thus this is a matter of national sovereignty, which
>cannot be delegated neither to specific government nor to the private
>sector, the latter lacking any legitimacy under international law.
>
>My opinion is that a reformed GAC (let's call it GOC, with an "o" for
>oversight) could address that part. Root server operations being 90%
>technical, the workload on the GOC would be rather limited. But since it
>would be multilateral, it would de facto be less challengeable.
>
>I would like to stress the fact that, under such a model, ICANN would be
>left largely untouched, which should reassure the many within ISOC who
>preach the "if it ain't broken don't fix it" attitude. Having cut its
>link with the DoC would actually give extra legitimacy to the ICANN
>process, as it will not appear to be flawed from the start.
>
>The other body would address the other parts of IG in terms of
>discussion, coordination and facilitation. This body should be
>lightweight and rely on others existing institutions or fora to take the
>lead when discussing specific issues (WIPO on IP issues, IETF on
>standards issues, etc).
>
>The funding of this group should be balanced between the public and the
>private sector. It needs to work for the common good and should be in a
>financial position that prevents it to be captured by one or another
>interest group.
>
>Regs,
>
>Patrick Vande Walle

Here you find my personal considerations on WGIG questionnire; I feel 
very interested also  considering my function as GAC representative 
for Italy and GAC vice-chair. Thanks to Patrik for his very concrete 
thougths.
The WGIG	Questionnaire:

The questionnaire is aiming at receiving responses that will be 
considered if politically and financially realistic.

There are four sets of questions:

1.       Forum Functions
2.      Oversight function
3.       Functioning/coordination of existing institutions
4 .      Functioning/coordination at the national level

The first set of questions logically should be considered as the last 
one since it envisages the possibility of setting up a sort of global 
forum to be on top of everything. The set that is specifically 
referring to ICANN, and to the GAC in particular, is the second one.

The first question is: "What functions do you envisage should be 
subject to oversight and over what areas of activity?"
The question is very general.

The second question: "Should the ICANN/GAC be transformed and take on 
some oversight functions ?"
This clearly demonstrates that the WGIG, when talking of oversight 
functions, has no other concrete ideas than referring to DNS and 
ICANN.
What is there behind this question? I interpret that the WGIG intends 
to receive proposals regarding the situation of ICANN/GAC after the 
expiration of the present MoU between ICANN and the Department of 
Commerce of US government.
The substance of the question is: "what after the expiration of the 
present MoU?
- should a governmental body assume at least part of the present 
oversight function on ICANN ?
- if the answer is yes, could the GAC, transformed in a GAC+ assume 
this role ? Patrik suggests that the answer is yes and that the GAC 
should be transformed in GOC.
- An element to discuss with ICANN is the type of oversight functions 
that could be retained by reference to those that are presently 
exercised by US-DoC.

The third question is: "Should the GAC be replaced by another body 
and what functions should such a body take on?"
The substance of this question is "What else if you do not think that 
the GAC is not appropriate and to do what?" The GAC is preparing an 
idea/proposal how to respond to the previous question; than this 
question could not deserve an answer apart from a generic one like 
this: "if we need a form of governmental oversight on ICANN, why not 
adjust the present role/functions of GAC that proved to be an 
effective presence in the ICANN decision making structure?"

The fourth question is: "Should any post-2006 governmental oversight 
be exercised within the UN framework ?"
This question is clearly referred to ICANN. The point is if it is 
envisaged to transport the oversight function presently exercised by 
the DoC to a body within the UN. Our position, is that the kind of 
oversight on the Internet governance that we could see positively is 
not connected to ICANN but rather to the intercommunication among the 
bodies that are involved in different aspects of the Internet 
governance; this oversight function could be exercised by a committee 
constituted by the Secretary General of UN and not committed to any 
existing UN agency. The only oversight on ICANN by this committee 
could be to monitor that ICANN is conducted in a way to respect it's 
mandate to be multi-stakeholders, bottom up, transparent, etc. and to 
promote links with other organizations when needed.


				*	*	*	*

The other sets of questions are instructive in order to verify the 
kind of inputs WGIG is looking for.

If we look at the third set of questions about coordination of 
existing institutions, we can only observe that a better coordination 
is always possible, provided that the organizations involved really 
want to collaborate. About the possibility to give to an existing 
institution the role of leading agency for coordination, I think that 
this is an unpractical and not desirable solution.

The forth set of questions is touching a well known problem within 
ICANN; the necessity of a form of conciliation of national decision 
making procedures with the necessary international Internet 
governance agreements.

The first set of questions is about the possible creation of a forum 
that can discuss a broad spectrum of Internet governance issues. Our 
position is that this body could be useful provided that is only of a 
consultative nature, has no control or supervising functions, is 
authoritative and supported by governments (connection to the 
comments on the question 2.4).


Stefano Trumpy






-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ing. Stefano TRUMPY
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica

Phone: +39 050 3152634
Mobile: +39 348 8218618
E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20050609/2bce98c3/attachment.htm>