3.V.1 - Oversight

Proposed text on oversight, beta 1.

======

62A. We recognize that the existing mechanisms for the governance of the Internet have been working well, but that, at the same time, their continued evolution is necessary, to address the technical and social changes caused by the ongoing development of the Internet, and to ensure full and global participation by all stakeholders in its governance. Source: New text

63A. We recognize that any organizational forms for the governance of the Internet should adhere to the following principles:

• No single Government or other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.
• The organizational forms for the governance function should be based on multi-stakeholder structures that are transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.
• The organizational forms for the governance function should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations.

*Source: WGIG Report, para 48 + changes: added “or other stakeholder” in first bullet; changed “form” into “forms”; changed “multilateral” into “multi-stakeholder”*

63B. We recognize that these principles should be implemented in an evolutionary manner, ensuring the stability and security of the Internet. We also recognize that different governance structures should be considered, and different roles should be assigned to the various stakeholders, according to the specific issue to be addressed. We commit to discussing any future arrangements on Internet governance issues in the open multi-stakeholder Forum setting described in paras ... . Source: New text

64A. We recognize that the issue of oversight over the Internet logical infrastructure – the Domain Name System and the IP addressing system – deserves immediate and special consideration. In this regard, we agree that ICANN, after appropriate reforms as detailed below, shall become the final venue for the global coordination of Internet identifiers, and that no single government or group of governments should have the authority to block or unilaterally control ICANN's decisions, neither in principle nor in practice. Source: New text

64B:

Note by vb: this 64B is Adam's proposal; I think these points are already covered elsewhere in the current text, i.e. first bullet => paras 48 and 55; second bullet => para 51; perhaps we should turn this into a proposal for a revision of those paras?

• We seek to ensure fair and equitable access to IP addressing resources. In this regard, we call for support of the specialised regional Internet resource management institutions to enhance each region's self-determination in management of Internet resources, while maintaining global coordination in this area.
• We recognize the importance of the root server system as a critical infrastructure essential to the security, stability and global operation and availability of the Internet. In this regard, we call for support of the root server operators, and encourage them to adapt and adopt their operational practises commensurate with their position as stewards critical global infrastructure. Furthermore, we encourage and support the continued internationalization of the root server system through "Anycast" implementations of root servers.
• something about ICANN in same tone/effect?

64C: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political oversight of the Internet logical infrastructure. In this regard we call for the following changes with regard to ICANN to be implemented within a reasonable time frame:

a)The US Government should recommit to renouncing to its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and the DNS root and should agree to a road map for this process.

b)ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder participation, in appropriate ways throughout its policy development structures, of the three stakeholder groups:

• national governments, including intergovernmental organizations;
• the private sector, including the technical community;
• civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations and the academic community.

In particular, the current dominance of the ICANN Board and decision-making processes by Western business representatives should be balanced by an equal representation of the global community of individual users and civil society organizations.

c)Each of these stakeholder groups should freely select its representatives and organizational forms through open, transparent and democratic processes.

d)ICANN must ensure that it establishes policy development processes that are predictable in timing and procedure, transparent and rule-driven, commensurate with international norms and principles for fair administrative decision-making to provide for predictable policy outcomes.

e)There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN's decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission invoked on a case-by-case basis.

f)Appropriate formal commitments by the government of the country that hosts ICANN should provide privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission, being careful to retain those aspects of its current articles of incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community.

g)ICANN's decisions, and any agreement with its host nation, must comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules.

h)Governments, individuals, and international organizations, including NGOs?, would have the right and responsibility of bringing violations of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, should have the right to invoke the binding appeals process.

i)Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN.

j)It is expected that the international multi-stakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum.

Source: Caucus statement at PrepCom?-3 with some revisions

comments:

Small revision --wdrake, Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:48:08 -0600 reply
Hi, Could we make the introductory sentence less sweeping? It appears to have been drafted with logical infrastructure in mind; obviously the larger range of gov mechanisms are not working just fine. Also, even if narrowly focused, I'd prefer that the statement say they generally work fine, quite obviously there are exceptions. So please say instead, "62A. We recognize that the existing mechanisms for the governance of the Internet’s LOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE GENERALLY have been working well, but that, at the same time, their continued evolution is necessary, to address the technical and social changes caused by the ongoing development of the Internet, and to ensure full and global participation by all stakeholders in its governance."