[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight

[Milton Mueller]

One aspect of my response to Avri/Jeanette political oversight statement
is significant but has not attracted any comment: 

> > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY
> > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO
TRADE
> > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC.
GOVERNMENTS
> > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A
DISPUTE
> > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF
> > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY.

There is all this talk about how governments need to be involved in the
"public policy" decisions. Basically, this approach calls their bluff.
It says, "ok, when governments have actually decided among themselves
what the policy is, and can produce specific rules and procedures
embodying that policy, then they can intervene - otherwise they cannot.


This is an idea that deserves widespread consideration. Unfortunately,
what many governments seem to have in mind when they talk about their
authority over "public policy" is a desire to intervene at will in ICANN
or other processes whenever they ex post facto deem something as being
of policy interest - .xxx being a case in point. But governments do not
have, and should not have, a right to make up "public policy" on the
fly, following no rules or procedures. This idea binds them to
intervening in cases when there are known public policies established
through legitimate processes. I note that it also fits in well with the
statement of Rikke Joergenson of the human rights caucus calling for
Internet-related organizations to be compliant with established human
rights norms. 

I may not have found the best way to implement this idea, but please
help me move forward on it.