Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG
Hello To progress from G1 to G12 appears to be a good idea. Viviane Reding proposes G12 as "an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" should include two representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences in this field could be given observer status. The idea is that "it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world". At the same time, the accountability of ICANN due to its "unique position of a global quasi-monopoly... requires global management... [as] monopolies always involve the risk of abuse. And who should ICANN be accountable to? Not the UN, because "decisions on internet governance need to be taken swiftly". So a G 12. The G12 for Internet Governance differs from a NATO or OPEC, as it is "informal" and "geographically balanced" with the inclusion of the ICANN chairman as a "non-voting" member with "observer" status granted to International Organizations. Good progress. But a move by Governments to take over the Internet? Why voting status to the Government 12 and observer status to the International Organizations? I would, in my independent opinion prefer an I 12 for Internet Governance with the twelve governments as Observers.... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (individual views) On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
9 minutes, well worth listening to what Viviane Reding has to say.
Adam
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org
From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:26:55 +0200
Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: - A fully privatized and independent ICANN - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international tribunal" (instead of California court) - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm
So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only.
Enjoy! Meryem
-- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
And what is wrong with the GAC? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn@gmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 5:42:47 PM GMT +12:00 New Zealand Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG Hello To progress from G1 to G12 appears to be a good idea. Viviane Reding proposes G12 as "an informal group of government representatives that meets at least twice a year and can make, by majority, recommendations to ICANN where appropriate. To be geographically balanced, this "G-12 for Internet Governance" should include two representatives from each North America, South America, Europe and Africa, three representatives from Asia and Australia, as well as the Chairman of ICANN as a non-voting member. International Organisations with competences in this field could be given observer status. The idea is that "it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world". At the same time, the accountability of ICANN due to its "unique position of a global quasi-monopoly... requires global management... [as] monopolies always involve the risk of abuse. And who should ICANN be accountable to? Not the UN, because "decisions on internet governance need to be taken swiftly". So a G 12. The G12 for Internet Governance differs from a NATO or OPEC, as it is "informal" and "geographically balanced" with the inclusion of the ICANN chairman as a "non-voting" member with "observer" status granted to International Organizations. Good progress. But a move by Governments to take over the Internet? Why voting status to the Government 12 and observer status to the International Organizations? I would, in my independent opinion prefer an I 12 for Internet Governance with the twelve governments as Observers.... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (individual views) On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
9 minutes, well worth listening to what Viviane Reding has to say.
Adam
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org
From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:26:55 +0200
Viviane Reding recommendation on IG: - A fully privatized and independent ICANN - Judicial review (complaints) "by a small, independent international tribunal" (instead of California court) - (Governmental) Oversight by a "G12" (geographically balanced) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/video/index_en.htm
So, progress on multilateral oversight. Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector) as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only.
Enjoy! Meryem
-- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
I pretty much agree with Patrik - also, GAC has an established role in ICANN policy development. Any oversight body should be external to ICANN and the GAC is not, this new G12 would be (how members are selected... this could be fun to watch!) I still think there's confusion over the various contracts between the US govt and ICANN/IANA/Verisign. Reding seems to be asking the Obama administration to end all. But the JPA is only a small part. Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade's paper about the Internet¹s authoritative root <http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/burr-cade.pdf> also worth considering. Adam
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
"Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> writes:
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Your observations about GAC are right on target, and I've heard exactly the same thing from two different GAC members in the past month. Needless to say, they were in the "higher-level" diplomat status. How about an evolution of GAC, with a GAC12 council? I have serious reservations wrt a G12 that's completely independent of GAC for the following reasons: - how the 12 countries are selected has not been revealed - will G12 have a veto power over ICANN's decisions? If so, what's the point of ICANN? - will G12 have revolving membership, or will the same 12 countries be chairing ad-infinitum? This makes it completely unrepresentative of the Internet - rather than making it inclusive, the G12 makes it exclusive. Furthermore, I also think that in its proposed form, it is a group which becomes candidate for capture - what is the accountability of this G12 group? At least, GAC has to answer to clear accountability procedures, and one is allowed to criticise it in truly democratic manner. G12 criticism is likely to be met with a water cannon. :-) Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
"Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> writes:
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Your observations about GAC are right on target, and I've heard exactly the same thing from two different GAC members in the past month. Needless to say, they were in the "higher-level" diplomat status.
How about an evolution of GAC, with a GAC12 council?
How about GZero? I wonder if we have anything like consensus in the caucus on the question: "Does ICANN need governmental oversight?" -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
An evolving GAC with more responsability is also a possibility, if you are ready to put resources into a G12, you can put the same resources into a better GAC. Nevertheless, I have reservation on the proposal, not for the composition of the G12 but for its role. An oversight group, is not a group that dives an organisation, or it seems this is what is proposed. This G12, should ensure ICANN fulfill its role, and that the decision process is left to the various stakeholders of ICANN, incuding GAC. If I may an analogy, ICANN stakeholders are the parliament, ICANN is the executive and the G12 should be the judiciary, fining ICANN when ICANN has not fullffilled the mandate set by its stakeholders. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 6:57:20 PM GMT +12:00 New Zealand Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [governance] EC recommends a "G12" for IG On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Amen! very well on point! Sophia On 5/4/09, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats. Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- _____________________ Sophia Bekele www.cbsintl.com www.dotconnectafrica.org www.sfbayisoc.org
Hello Patrick, On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:16 +1200 (MAGST), Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
And what is wrong with the GAC?
From my personal perspective, the GAC lacks authority and, in a certain way, credibility. Depending how important ICANN is considered under the local political context, some governments will send senior officials. Some will send junior officials. Some come from the telecoms ministry, some from the economy ministry or foreign affairs, some from the telecom regulation authority. Some have a well defined political agenda, others only a tourism agenda.
Different countries assign the Internet related policy tasks to whatever Ministry or Department that happen to be dealing in related matters in the context of the country's policy making. So if one country assigns a representative from the Ministry of Telecommunications and another assigns a representative from the Ministry of Information Technology and yet another nation with a smaller cabinet considers it a matter of foreign policy, it is OK for the time being, Internet happens to be young, very young. It will all take shape in due course. The harsh reality is that we have national governments that can't afford the luxury of airfare to attend the GAC meetings. Perhaps the GAC needs a program to "improve participation and enhance the quality of participation" in GAC meetings. GAC, in its present form, may be imperfect as a representative body of the governments of the world, everything that you have observed is right, but as a body representing Governments, it is at least superficially inclusive. These imperfections could not possibly be an excuse for sidelining the GAC and bring in an "exlusive" club of twelve governments. For the sake of argument, one can not possibly dismiss at-Large as irrelevant by saying that one or two out of the ninety representatives went on a tour of the pyramids !
IMHO, the GAC crowd is too large and heterogeneous to come up with a clearly defined policy. At one stage, we need limited number of serious high level diplomats.
A working group model within GAG could be a solution. From within the 'General Body' of GAC, a "limited number of serious ... diplomats" as you propose could come together as intra-working groups issue by issue, task by task.. There could be several solutions.
Now, how they are chosen is a different matter. And a very scary one I do not wish to solve.
Actually Viviane Reding's proposal, as an INITIAL PROPOSAL, in the context of JPA review, is a good start. G 12 in place of G 1 is far better, but paradoxically, not good enough. Wolfgang Kleinwachter points out in the Governance list " There are at least five confusing omissions in Madame Redings Statement if you compare it with the language adopted in Tunis...In the PDF File from her video message you will NOT find five key words from the Tunis Compromise: "multistakeholder", "civil society", "respective role", "enhanced cooperation", "equal footing"." That is the problem here. GAC operates well within the multi-stakeholder principles, and this may not be the case with the proposed G 12, at least in the initial form in which the idea is proposed. Perhaps Viviane Reding is too focused on the task of ICANN independence from the US, and so this proposal may perhaps be read and analyzed only in that confined context. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Franck Martin -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Sophia B