[AfrICANN-discuss] FW: Internationalization of the Internet Marks Historic Agreement

[Lohento, Ken]

Fwded below, a mail sent to another list about this issue  -- and thanks 
Anne Rachel for the information

---------------------------- Message original ----------------------------
Objet:   Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not?
De:      lohento at oridev.org
Date:    Jeu 1 octobre 2009 12:27
À:       governance at lists.cpsr.org
Copie à: africann at afrinic.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, this is a good step towards more multilateralism in ICANN
processes. Let's hope that the review committee members will be really
independent (apart from those already linked to ICANN) or adopt
independent recommendations. It's true their nomination by ICANN and the
GAC brings about some fears about this independence towards ICANN, but
since there is room for public comments throughout the process, let's be
optimistic to start with. The involvement of GAC in particular in that
nomination is a good thing but I hope in some countries real experts will
be nominated (and not just lurkers).

For sure, IGF can still play a role here in contributing to bringing to
limelight some issues to be dealt with by the review committee. But IGF
would be really effective in that role only if in one way or the other it
has concrete outputs.

Ken L

 > Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes
 > which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year
 > cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair
 > or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of
 > the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased
 > role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of
 > oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the
 > Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within
 > six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is
 > no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is
 > not obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have
 > the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not the
 > instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the Affirmation
 > by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private organization and nothing
 > in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.'
 > So  the Board  remains the key body of power within ICANN  and the least
 > accountable, as there is no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN
 > community to dismiss the Board.
 >
 > Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting unilateral
 > US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent civil
 > society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the
 > recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the ICANN
 > Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the IGF 'as
 > it is the only place where all internet related topics can be addressed
 > by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, including
 > Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role the IGF may
 > be able to play as a space where the reviews can be deliberated on in a
 > multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the transparency of the review
 > process and perhaps its soft power.
 >
 > Willie
 >
___________________________________________________________
 >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
 >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org