Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Stephanie Perrin]

Absolutely right, and I think we need a lot of work on new models with 
teeth, if we are going to work towards more multi-stakeholder models in 
international governance.  I think many are concerned about bias in US 
jurisdiction, and while I like the bias towards free speech, one cannot 
deny that a more international model would be more fair.  Question is 
how to develop one that works.
kind regards
SP

On 2015-05-05 11:49, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Effective international court is a very nice concept but international 
> courts and tribunals have always been a soft law mechanism with no 
> real judicial power. so we will go back to square one! I don't 
> understand why we would need an international oversight if we can 
> legally hold ICANN (the rule making part of ICANN) accountable in the 
> court of law in the US ? some may say there are accessibility issues, 
> well accessibility issues also exist in international mechanisms! In 
> some international courts only states can file suits against states. I 
> find the Independent Review Panel more effective than an international 
> court !
>
> On 5 May 2015 at 13:28, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     I agree too.  For an organization the size of ICANN, one ombudsman
>     to cover a number of accountabilities should suffice.  On the
>     other hand, I do agree that ICANN needs an international appeal
>     mechanism for its decisions (ie a Court or Tribunal), I don't
>     think that the Board should be the only appeal mechanism, but that
>     is another matter entirely.
>     Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>     On 2015-05-05 10:55, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>>     I tend to agree with Sam on this one, especially the pondering
>>     questions raised in relation to international oversight.
>>
>>     Cheers!
>>     sent from Google nexus 4
>>     kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>>     On 5 May 2015 17:15, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran at yorku.ca
>>     <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         Carlos,
>>
>>         Thanks for your comment and flagging the issues of an outside
>>         international oversight body, the  ombudsmans
>>         (ombudspersons?) office, and the possibility of another
>>         office within ICANN to address “these strategic challenges”.
>>         Here are some quick comments from the small to the big in
>>         terms of challenges here.
>>
>>         In terms of the choice between the ombudsman and some other
>>         new ICANN office, my personal view is to prefer the
>>         ombudsman, and not just because it would be less expensive in
>>         a time of serious ICANN budget constraints (another
>>         challenge). I find it hard to envision a new ICANN office
>>         dealing with DNS strategic challenges where that office would
>>         not become a lightening rod for a wide variety of external
>>         forces interested in issues that would amount to pressure for
>>         ICANN scope creep. As well, administrative theory and
>>         evidence suggests that a new office, in and of itself, would
>>         risk scope creep within its own work agenda, to bolster its
>>         existence, especially in times of constrained budgets.
>>
>>         As for an international (outside) oversight body, for me the
>>         core issues are: (a) what principles are to be upheld; (b)
>>         keeping clear what should be inside the ICANN DNS system
>>         remit; and (c) what within the DNS system should be addressed
>>         elsewhere. The primary role of an oversight body is to hold
>>         an entity accountable to its remit. How does that get defined
>>         in a way that an oversight body: (i) doesn’t foster scope
>>         creep by asking ICANN to be accountable for the wrong things,
>>         and (ii) helps re-direct DNS concerns (especially content and
>>         intellectual property issues) to other appropriate venues?
>>
>>         Sam L.
>>         /
>>         On 05/05/2015 11:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>         /
>>>         /Dear Sam,
>>>
>>>         Powerful message indeed. ICANN needs an outside international oversight
>>>         body which would, among other tasks, decidedly help in tackling these
>>>         strategic challenges.
>>>
>>>         But we (NCSG?) seem to agree on this oversight being reduced to an
>>>         office within ICANN. What would be the real difference between this
>>>         office and the ombudsman? My answer: the ombudsman is much cheaper.
>>>
>>>         fraternal regards
>>>
>>>         --c.a./
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150505/0d5efc28/attachment.htm>