Diplo Internet Governance Community

Stay networked. Get informed. Broadcast your projects.

Plenary 3: The Post -JPA Phase: Towards a Future Internet Governance Model

ICANN says that , accountablity with ICANN is probably higher and better than most other entities.

ICANN says now that the debate is over and security can be instaled and ICANN can move on with it’s work. Accountability and transparency in ICANN has made great progress.

Slobadan from Serbia thinks that ICANN is the only place that such work can be carried out and should be left to the private community to deal with in a multistakeholder approach. I can was not always perfect and still isn’t now, but it is evolving and improving.

CoE feels that international accountability has to be engaged. It doesn’t mean that I can has to be changed or replaced but ICANN could create and Advisory Committee for Human Rights. It wouldn’t be binding but guiding. Transparency doesn’t mean it is accountable, it should be subject to analysis. It needs a proper advisory structure. There are many ways to engage with ICANN but there is a need to account for international law and the CoE has a mandate from its member states to promote the European standards in accountability of Human Rights.

Accountabilities biggest question is to whom? The importance is accountability to the wider community that who are not in this room.

The question is more ambitious that we need to do better of accountability, this is like every organisation, there is a need to improve on a continuous basis. The problem is not the companiesd on the internet that is missing the problem is the countries that are on the internet are not fully represented.

ICANN offices should have a physical presence in different countries and not just in the US.

These are the ungoing work in ICANN that will go on beyond the end of the JPA and is showing leadership in the area, according to ICANN. Transparency and discussions are important and the ideas of dialogue and improving developing states in participation. There are many of these items are ongoing in ICANN….so what are they, can we have details? How are they being implemented, timescales, measures?

Transparency is not accountability, the global industry wants accountability of ICANN and this is being done.

We need a better of how ICANN works and a picture of a dialogue review. ICANN review and the ending of the JPA is now loaded with political issues and interests. The US still control IANA and route servers even after the end of the JPA in September and these steps have to be in a step to step process.

There is problems of ccTLD and there is no guidelines from ICANN or the CoE and that these are not available . The EU does have such guidelines.

There needs to be a legal process to address issues ICANN decides that effect other states and businesses.

WSIS in Tunis states that all governements should have an equal status and that is not the present situtation with the US having control. However, this needs to change step by step and it can not be just done in September when the JPA has expired.

Summary

The security of the internet, and that whatever these concerns that they are not just concerning ICANN. It must be remembered that the comments outside of Europe are different on ICANN. ICANN must remain a multistakeholder approach. The advisory committee is important and a committee made up of governments as a oversight role is not the goal but accountability.

The idea of oversight still remains a vague idea and who it should be and how it will function.

The area and controll of ccTLD on a nationl level is an issue that needs to be addressed and guidelines developed.

There are many organisations that work with ICANN such as At Large and EUROLA and that the greater involvement and impact of these is require in future developments. The allowance of the At Large to have voting rights on the board is encouragable but the requires to be much more done on this. My personal feeling is that ICANN like all IGOs and large organisations do not truly hold themselves accountable and that true transparency of processes will show difficiencies and issues of concern. While it is true that there needs to be a step by step approach the true picture of ICANN is unknown.

Views: 39

Comment

You need to be a member of Diplo Internet Governance Community to add comments!

Join Diplo Internet Governance Community

Members

Groups

Follow us

Website and downloads

Visit Diplo's IG website, www.diplomacy.edu/ig for info on programmes, events, and resources.

The full text of the book An Introduction to Internet Governance (6th edition) is available here. The translated versions in Serbian/BCS, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, and Portuguese are also available for download.

Interviews


Karlene Francis (Jamaica)
Ivar Hartmann
(Brazil)
Elona Taka (Albania)
Fahd Batayneh (Jordan)
Edward Muthiga (Kenya)
Nnenna Nwakanma (Côte d'Ivoire)
Xu Jing (China)
Gao Mosweu (Botswana)
Jamil Goheer (Pakistan)
Virginia (Ginger) Paque (Venezuela)
Tim Davies (UK)
Charity Gamboa-Embley (Philippines)
Rafik Dammak (Tunisia)
Jean-Yves Gatete (Burundi)
Guilherme Almeida (Brazil)
Magaly Pazello (Brazil)
Sergio Alves Júnior (Brazil)
Adela Danciu (Romania)
Simona Popa (Romania)
Marina Sokolova (Belarus)
Andreana Stankova (Bulgaria)
Vedran Djordjevic (Canada)
Maria Morozova (Ukraine)
David Kavanagh (Ireland)
Nino Gobronidze (Georgia)
Sorina Teleanu (Romania)
Cosmin Neagu (Romania)
Maja Rakovic (Serbia)
Elma Demir (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Tatiana Chirev (Moldova)
Maja Lubarda (Slovenia)
Babatope Soremi (Nigeria)
Marilia Maciel (Brazil)
Raquel Gatto (Brazil)
Andrés Piazza (Argentina)
Nevena Ruzic (Serbia)
Deirdre Williams (St. Lucia)
Maureen Hilyard (Cook Islands)
Monica Abalo (Argentina)
Emmanuel Edet (Nigeria)
Mwende Njiraini (Kenya)
Marsha Guthrie (Jamaica)
Kassim M. AL-Hassani (Iraq)
Marília Maciel (Brazil)
Alfonso Avila (Mexico)
Pascal Bekono (Cameroon)

© 2022   Created by Community Owner.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service