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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Milton, I share your concern, and I also share you suspicion that 
"public policy issues" are deliberately defined in a vague way to ensure 
a maximum of flexibility for governments to intervene whenever they 
like. If its possible enumerate relevant cases of international public 
policy issues, we should definitely propose this. In fact, this would be
a good issue for another intervention on behalf of the caucus.
So, if those more competent on this issue could perhaps put together a 
comprehensive list of public policy relevant treaties or mechanisms or 
whatever, that would be most welcome.
jeanette

Milton Mueller wrote:
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
> 
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary