Dear Stefano,
I tend to concur with your views on the WGIG process and the related
suggestion on creating a new body while reforming ICANN.
Just a few bias to this though; and this is about a reformed GOC; how would
this be done and which relationship should such a new body entertain with
the USG? is it going to be linked with the UN system?
On the new body to be created, which should act as a forum for discussion,
coordination and facilitation, I perceive a key role for ISOC alongside with
the ICANN's ALAC, WIPO, WTO, ITU..etc. Now, will this have anything to do
with the so called Global Alliance on ICT which is poised to replace the
current UN ICT taskforce? And how about the voices those are now suggesting
that the current WIGIG be transformed into such a new body?
Best regards
Pierre Dandjinou
Isoc Benin
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:25 AM
To: chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] WGIG summary of replies to the
questionnaire
[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/20050609/55f87642/attachment.htm>